UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL   EXPERIMENT   STATION 

BERKELEY,    CALIFORNIA 


SERIES  ON  CALIFORNIA  CROPS  AND  PRICES 

BEANS 


H.  R.  WELLMAN  AND  E.  W.  BRAUN 


BULLETIN  444 

December,  1927 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1927 


CONTENTS 

Page 

Summary 3 

The  general  situation 7 

Main  bean-producing  states 7 

Changes  in  production 7 

Varieties  of  beans 12 

Importance  of  analysis  by  varieties 12 

Main  varieties  produced  in  California 13 

Changes  in  production  of  California  varieties 14 

Factors  causing  wide  fluctuations  in  production  from  year  to  year 19 

Markets  and  competition  between  varieties 22 

Limas  and  Baby  Limas 23 

Pink 24 

Blackeye 25 

Small  White  and  Large  White 25 

Cranberry 26 

California  Red 26 

Red  Kidney 27 

Bayo 27 

Prices  and  purchasing  power 27 

Factors  affecting  changes  in  purchasing  power 31 

Recent  trends  in  purchasing  power 34 

Representative  prices  during  recent  years 35 

Probable  future  price  differentials .... 39 

Seasonal  variation  in  prices 39 

Consumption 41 

United  States  foreign  trade  in  beans 42 

Exports 42 

Imports '. 46 

Net  exports  and  net  imports 50 

Cost  of  producing  beans  in  Santa  Barbara  County,  1927 52 

Acknowledgments 53 

Appendix  of  tables 54 


BEANS 

H.  E.  WELLMANi  and  E.  W.  BKATJN2 


SUMMARY 

Production  of  dry  edible  beans  in  the  United  States  has  increased 
substantially  during  the  past  five  years,  until  at  the  present  time  the 
nation  is  producing  as  many  beans  as  it  did  during  the  peak  years  of 
the  war.  This  recent  expansion,  however,  has  taken  place  under  more 
favorable  conditions  than  did  the  rapid  increase  in  production  during 
the  war  period.  Occurring  more  gradually  and  under  normal  con- 
ditions, it  has  been  made  upon  land  which  is  in  general  well  adapted 
to  the  production  of  beans.  There  has  been,  therefore,  no  general 
decline  in  yield.  Furthermore,  it  has  been  accompanied  by  a  corre- 
sponding increase  in  demand,  which  seems  to  be  of  a  permanent 
character  as  contrasted  with  the  temporary  increase  in  demand  during 
the  war.  Consequently  there  has  been  no  pronounced  downward 
trend  in  purchasing  power  during  the  recent  period  of  expansion. 

It  should  not  be  assumed,  however,  that  this  situation  justifies  any 
further  substantial  increase  in  production.  Our  present  normal  pro- 
duction of  approximately  ten  million  bags  is  very  close  to  our  apparent 
need  for  domestic  consumption.  The  acreage  of  beans  in  the  United 
States  is  now  so  large  that  a  very  favorable  growing  and  harvesting 
season  would  either  force  a  relatively  large  quantity  into  export 
outlets,  where  they  would  have  to  compete  with  low-priced  foreign 
beans,  or  cause  a  substantial  domestic  carryover. 

California  has  contributed  a  relatively  small  amount  to  the  recent 
increase  in  the  United  States  production  of  beans.  The  large  increases 
in  production  have  occurred  in  Michigan,  Colorado,  Idaho,  and  New 
Mexico.  Michigan  alone  contributed  almost  one-half  of  the  total 
increase  in  the  United  States  production  since  1921.  At  the  present 
time  approximately  40  per  cent  of  the  United  States  bean  crop  is 
produced  in  Michigan,  as  compared  with  28  per  cent  in  California. 

California,  however,  is  the  dominant  factor  in  the  production  of 
seven  of  the  ten  important  varieties  grown  in  this  state.  These  are 
the  Lima,  Baby  Lima,  Pink,  Blackeye,  California  Red,   Cranberry, 


i  Extension  Specialist  in  Agricultural  Economics. 
2  Extension  Specialist  in  Agricultural  Economics. 


4  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

and  Bayo.  The  only  one  of  these  seven  varieties  which  meets  with 
much  competition  in  the  consuming  markets  from  varieties  grown  in 
other  states  is  the  Pink.  It  meets  considerable  competition  from  the 
Pinto,  which  is  grown  extensively  in  Colorado  and  New  Mexico.  The 
other  three  varieties  grown  in  California  are  the  Small  White,  Large 
White,  and  Red  Kidney.  Only  a  small  proportion  of  the  total  United 
States  production  of  these  three  varieties,  however,  is  produced  in 
this  state.  Consequently  changes  in  California  production  have  but 
little  effect  upon  the  prices  of  these  three  varieties. 

The  prices  of  each  variety  of  beans  fluctuate  widely  from  year  to 
year.  Furthermore,  the  fluctuations  in  the  prices  of  a  given  variety 
are  largely  independent  of  the  fluctuations  in  the  prices  of  other 
varieties.  Sometimes  the  prices  of  the  several  varieties  move  in  the 
same  direction;  at  other  times  they  do  not.  The  price  for  which  a 
variety  will  sell  during  any  given  year  is  determined  largely  by  the 
production  of  that  particular  variety,  except  in  those  few  cases  where 
varieties  compete  directly  with  each  other  in  the  consuming  markets. 
Since  growers  have  no  means  of  knowing  what  the  production  of  each 
variety  will  be  during  the  planting  season,  they  cannot  at  that  time 
forecast  accurately  the  prices  which  they  will  obtain  for  their  beans. 
Consequently  an  effort  to  grow  just  that  variety  which  will  bring  the 
highest  price  in  any  particular  year  is  usually  fruitless.  Further- 
more, the  price  obtained  for  the  past  year's  crop  is  not  by  itself  a 
reliable  indication  of  the  price  that  will  be  obtained  for  the  following 
year's  crop.  The  prices  which  growers  should  consider  when  changing 
from  one  variety  to  another  are  the  average  prices  which  have  pre- 
vailed over  a  period  of  years  as  modified  by  those  changes  in  trends 
which  can  now  be  foreseen. 

With  regard  to  the  average  prices  which  have  prevailed  during 
recent  years,  the  California  varieties  fall  into  three  well  defined  price 
groups:  the  high-priced  varieties  are  Limas,  Baby  Limas,  and  Red 
Kidneys;  the  medium-priced  varieties  are  Cranberries  and  Bayos; 
and  the  low-priced  varieties  are  Large  Whites,  Pinks,  California  Reds, 
and  Blackeyes.  Small  Whites  fall  between  the  medium-priced  and 
the  low-priced  groups. 

The  prices  of  the  Limas  and  Baby  Limas  have  averaged  approxi- 
mately the  same  because  they  compete  directly  in  the  consuming 
markets.  Although  Limas  are  consumed  mainly  in  the  northern  states 
and  Baby  Limas  in  the  southern  states,  there  is  some  overlapping  of 
market  areas  where  consumers  constantly  substitute  the  lower-priced 
variety  for  the  higher.  This  substitution  has  generally  been  great 
enough  to  keep  the  prices  of  the  two  varieties  in  close  adjustment. 


Bul.  444]  BEANS  5 

Small  Whites  and  Large  Whites  also  compete  in  the  consuming 
markets,  but  not  to  the  extent  that  they  did  a  few  years  ago.  The 
rapid  increase  in  the  utilization  of  Small  Whites  in  canning  during 
recent  years  has  taken  a  large  volume  off  the  dry-bean  market.  Those 
remaining  find  markets  that  are  willing  to  pay  a  premium  for  them 
over  Large  Whites.  An  additional  factor  contributing  to  the  lower 
prices  of  Large  Whites  has  been  the  relatively  large  imports  of  a 
similar  variety  from  the  Orient  which  have  been  sold  at  low  prices. 

The  other  varieties  of  beans  grown  in  California  do  not  compete 
to  any  considerable  extent  in  the  consuming  market  with  each  other 
or  with  the  Lima  or  White  varieties.  Consequently  the  prices  of  these 
varieties  may  be  widely  different  during  any  given  year.  Over  a 
period  of  years,  however,  a  consistent  relationship  is  maintained 
between  the  average  prices  of  these  varieties  because  of  the  competition 
between  them  for  the  use  of  land. 

Although  each  variety  has  its  own  particular  section  in  which  it 
can  be  produced  better  than  the  other  varieties,  a  considerable  pro- 
portion of  the  bean  land  in  the  state  is  adapted  to  the  production  of 
more  than  one  variety.  The  variety  which  will  be  grown  on  such  land 
is  determined  largely  by  the  anticipated  net  return  per  acre;  and 
equality  in  the  net  return  per  acre  is  maintained  by  the  tendency  of 
growers  to  shift  from  the  varieties  which  have  given  low  returns  to 
those  which  have  given  high  returns.  Since  prices  per  bag  and  yields 
per  acre  are  the  most  important  factors  determining  net  returns,  we 
find  that  the  varieties  which  have  averaged  the  same  in  prices  have 
approximately  the  same  yield  per  acre ;  and  the  differences  in  average 
prices  are  caused  largely  by  differences  in  yields  per  acre.  Thus  we 
find  that  the  prices  of  Blaekeye,  California  Red,  and  Pinks  have 
averaged  approximately  the  same  during  the  past  six  years.  These 
three  varieties  can  be  grown  almost  equally  well  in  many  places. 
Pinks  are  grown  in  the  same  sections  that  produce  Cranberries  and 
Bayos.  Even  though  the  prices  of  Pinks  have  averaged  lower,  the 
higher  yields  of  Pinks  have  offset  the  higher  prices  of  Cranberries 
and  Bayos,  resulting  in  equality  in  the  net  return  per  acre.  The 
prices  of  Red  Kidneys  have  averaged  even  higher  than  those  of 
Cranberries  and  Bayos,  but  Red  Kidneys  have  not  replaced  the  latter 
varieties,  because  outside  of  a  very  limited  area  along  the  Feather 
River,  the  yields  are  considerably  lower. 

The  relatively  high  average  prices  of  Limas  and  Baby  Limas 
during  the  past  six  years  were  due  to  the  fact  that  the  land  adapted 
to  their  production  was  believed  to  be  limited.  In  the  case  of  Limas 
this  is  still  true.     But  during  the  past  two  years  the  production  of 


b  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

Baby  Limas  has  extended  to  many  parts  of  the  state,  and  now  they  are 
grown  in  competition  with  Small  Whites,  Pinks,  California  Eeds,  and 
Blackeyes.  The  increased  production  of  Baby  Limas  which  resulted 
from  this  expansion  has  caused  a  substantial  reduction  in  their  prices. 
A  portion  of  this  price  reduction  is  likely  to  be  permanent.  It  may 
be  expected  that  the  average  price  of  Baby  Limas  in  the  future  will 
be  maintained  at  the  level  which  will  no  more  than  offset  the  difference 
in  yield  between  them  and  the  varieties  with  which  they  compete  for 
the  use  of  land.  Because  of  the  close  competition  between  Limas  and 
Baby  Limas  in  the  consuming  markets,  the  future  prices  of  Limas  may 
also  average  considerably  lower. 

There  are  no  forces  yet  apparent  which  are  likely  to  cause 
permanent  changes  in  the  average  prices  of  the  other  varieties  grown 
in  this  state.  Growers  who  have  the  choice  of  planting  any  one  of 
the  several  varieties  can,  therefore,  arrive  at  a  fairly  accurate  decision 
from  a  comparison  of  the  gross  returns  per  acre  by  multiplying  the 
probable  average  prices  by  the  yields  obtained  under  their  particular 
conditions. 

From  the  standpoint  of  California  growers  the  most  significant 
developments  in  the  United  States  foreign  trade  in  beans  are  (1)  that 
we  are  gradually  losing  our  foreign  markets,  and  (2)  that  we  now 
have  a  relatively  large  potential  foreign  competition  which  we  did 
not  have  before  the  war.  The  Orient,  which  produces  varieties  of 
beans  similar  to  those  grown  in  California,  has  become  an  important 
exporter.  This  competition  of  the  Oriental  beans  will  tend  to  check 
any  continued  rise  in  the  domestic  prices  of  those  varieties  with  which 
they  compete,  primarily  Large  Whites,  Small  Whites,  and  Pinks. 

Bean  growing  is  a  speculative  business.  Prices  of  each  variety 
fluctuate  widely  from  year  to  year.  The  direction  and  extent  of  these 
price  fluctuations  cannot  be  forecast  accurately  at  the  time  of  plant- 
ing. Over  a  period  of  years,  however,  a  consistent  relationship  tends 
to  be  maintained  between  the  average  prices  of  the  different  varieties. 
These  probable  average  prices  coupled  with  the  known  yields  that 
growers  can  obtain  under  their  particular  conditions  will  give  them  an 
indication  of  the  variety  that  will  be  profitable  on  their  lands.  Such 
a  forecast  may  not  prove  correct  for  any  given  year,  but  for  a  series 
of  years  the  bean  growers  who  are  permanently  in  the  business  will 
find  it  profitable  to  make  such  calculations.  Further  developments 
may  cause  permanent  changes  in  the  trends  of  bean  prices  given  in 
this  bulletin,  but  these  are  not  yet  apparent  from  the  facts  we  have 
been  able  to  gather.  Certainly,  however,  any  radical  increase  in  bean 
acreage  here  or  elsewhere  is  likely  to  be  felt  by  California  bean  growers. 


Bul.  444]  BEANS  7 

The  present  production  of  beans  is  adequate  for  national  consumption 
at  the  present  level  of  prices.  There  seems  to  be,  therefore,  no 
justification  for  an  increase  in  bean  acreage. 


THE   GENERAL  SITUATION 

Main  Bean-Producing  States. — At  the  present  time  the  United 
States  normally  produces  10,200,000  bags  of  beans.3  Approximately 
98  per  cent  of  this  amount  is  produced  in  eight  states  (fig.  1).  The 
normal  production  of  California,  2,700,000  bags,  is  exceeded  only  by 
that  of  Michigan,  with  4,000,000  bags.  These  two  states  normally 
produce  two-thirds  of  the  total  United  States  bean  crop.  The  other 
main  bean-producing  states  in  order  of  their  importance  are  New 
York,  Colorado,  Idaho,  New  Mexico,  Montana,  and  Wyoming. 

Changes  in  Production, — The  relative  changes  in  the  total  bean 
production  in  the  United  States  from  1914  to  1926  are  shown  by  the 
upper  curve  in  figure  2.  The  greatly  increased  production  in  1917 
and  1918  was  a  result  of  the  high  prices  paid  for  beans  during  the 
World  War.  Large  purchases  of  beans  were  made  for  the  military 
and  naval  forces  of  the  United  States  and  the  Allies.  In  addition, 
the  Federal  government  urgently  requested  increased  production. 
The  United  States  acreage  of  beans  was  almost  doubled  between  1914- 
1915  and  1917-1918. 4  The  increased  acreage,  however,  did  not  result 
in  a  corresponding  increase  in  production ;  the  increase  in  production 
amounted  to  only  32  per  cent.  The  feverish  rush  to  increase  produc- 
tion resulted  in  planting  beans  on  land  upon  which  the  yield  was  so 
low  as  compared  with  the  costs  of  production  that  it  could  not  produce 
beans  profitably  except  at  very  high  prices.  This  is  clearly  shown  by 
the  great  reduction  in  acreage  resulting  from  the  low  prices  of  beans 
immediately  after  the  war.  From  1917  and  1918  to  1920  and  1921 
the  total  bean  acreage  in  the  United  States  was  reduced  64  per  cent. 
This  caused  a  decrease  in  production  of  only  45  per  cent,  indicating 
that  a  large  part  of  the  low  yielding  land  went  out  of  production. 

Two  states,  California  and  Colorado,  were  principally  responsible 
for  the  large  increase  in  United  States  production  from  1914  and  1915 
to  1917  and  1918.  The  rapid  expansion  of  bean  production  was  par- 
ticularly striking  in  California,  which  contributed  68  per  cent  of  the 
total  increase.     The  average  bean  acreage  in  these  states  during  the 


3  This  publication  deals  solely  with  dry  edible  beans. 

*  See  table  8,  page  55,  which  gives  United  States  bean  acreage  by  states, 
1914-1926. 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


two  years  of  1914  and  1915  amounted  to  220,000  acres  as  compared 
with  an  average  acreage  of  575,000  acres  in  1917  and  1918,  an  increase 
of  160  per  cent.  Beans  were  planted  upon  land  that  had  never  grown 
beans  before,  and  which  will  probably  never  grow  them  again. 

Since  1921  bean  production  in  the  United  States  has  increased 
steadily,  until  at  the  present  time  the  nation  is  producing  as  many 


Bean  Production,  United  States  and  California,  1914-1926 


U.  S. 


Calif,       © 


(0  iH 

W>eO 


O 
O  lO 

©  o 


§ 

to 

CM 

co 

t- 

e- 

«# 

10 

to 

O 

CM 

fc 

s 

CM 

to 

CO 

O 

o 

o 

to 

C£> 

<0 

to 

00 

to 

to 

t-i 

CO 

co 

o 

iH 

r-« 

GO 

to 

to 

•* 

to 

to 

»H 

O 

CO 

<* 

8 

o» 
co 

to 

CM 

3 

to 

CO 

1 

to 
co 

•H 

«H 

8 

O 

tO 

tO 

*♦ 

to 

e- 

«o 

CO 

•H 

9 

»0 

o> 

to 

** 

to 

CM 

CM 

CM 

»-t 

CM 

to 

10000 
9000 
8000 
7000 
6000 
«  5000 
Jf    4000 


g    3000 
2000 

1000 


UN 

1       ■ 
IITED      STA 

TES 

/ 

\ 

1 

/ 
/ 

•^•- 

/ 

\ 
\ 

> 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

CALI 

FORNI 

A 

V 
\ 

\ 

4 

/ 

**». 

s 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

< 

* 

\ 
\ 

t 

to        <o 

r\  fH 

o>         O 


o> 

o 

fH 

CM 

to 

^ 

to 

to 

l-t 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

o> 

o> 

o> 

o> 

O 

o> 

o> 

o> 

Fig.  2. — Bean  production  in  the  United  States  has  increased  substantially 
during  the  past  five  years.  California,  however,  has  contributed  a  relatively 
small  amount  of  this  increase. 

Data  from  table  10. 


beans  as  it  did  during  the  peak  years  of  the  war.  This  recent  expan- 
sion, however,  has  taken  place  under  more  favorable  conditions  than 
did  the  rapid  increase  in  production  during  the  war  period.  Occur- 
ring more  gradually  and  under  normal  conditions,  it  has  been  made 
upon  land  which  is  in  general  well  adapted  to  the  production  of  beans. 
Consequently  there  has  been  no  general  decline  in  yield.  This  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  production  has  experienced  the  same  percent- 
age increase  as  acreage  has.  Furthermore,  it  has  been  accompanied 
by  a  corresponding  increase  in  demand,  which  seems  to  be  of  a  per- 


10  UNIVEKSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

manent  character  as  contrasted  with  the  temporary  increase  in  demand 
during  the  war.5  These  two  conditions  indicate  that  on  the  whole  this 
recent  expansion  has  been  a  healthy  one.  During  this  period  farmers 
have  found  the  growing  of  beans  to  be  profitable — not  as  profitable 
perhaps  as  they  would  like,  but  at  least  more  profitable  than  the 
growing  of  alternative  crops.  Farmers  would  not  have  planted  more 
beans  each  year  for  five  consecutive  years  unless  it  had  paid  them  to 
do  so.6 

It  should  not  be  assumed,  however,  that  this  expansion  can  con- 
tinue indefinitely  without  a  demoralizing  effect  upon  the  industry. 
The  United  States  acreage  of  beans  is  even  now  so  large  that  a  very 
favorable  season  would  undoubtedly  result  in  a  supply  far  in  excess 
of  our  usual  requirements  at  the  present  level  of  prices. 

California  farmers,  evidently,  have  not  found  beans  to  be  as  profit- 
able compared  with  other  crops  as  have  bean  growers  in  other  states. 
Figure  2  shows  that  California  has  contributed  a  relatively  small 
amount  of  the  total  increase  in  United  States  production.  The  large 
increases  in  bean  production  since  1921  have  occurred  in  Michigan, 
Colorado,  and  Idaho  (fig.  3).  Idaho  and  Colorado  have  experienced 
the  largest  percentage  increases  in  production,  but  because  of  their 
much  smaller  total  production  the  absolute  increases  in  these  two 
states  have  been  less  than  that  in  Michigan.  Michigan  has  contributed 
almost  one-half  of  the  total  United  States  increase  since  1921.  The 
production  of  beans  in  New  Mexico  has  also  increased  substantially 
during  this  period,  but  the  amount  of  this  increase  cannot  be  measured 
because  production  data  are  available  only  since  1924.  At  the  present 
time  the  normal  bean  production  in  Colorado  nearly  equals  the  peak 
production  during  the  war,  while  the  normal  production  in  Michigan 

s  See  page  43. 

6  The  preliminary  figures  given  below  indicate  that  the  total  bean  acreage 
in  the  United  States  was  again  increased  in  1927. 

Preliminary  Estimates  of  Bean"  Acreage  by  States,  1927 

State  Acres 

California  274,000 

Michigan     662,000 

New  York  97,000 

Colorado   326,000 

New  Mexico  214,000 

Idaho    75,000 

Montana   48,000 

Others     53,000 

Total  United  States  1,749,000 

Data  from  California  Cooperative  Crop  Reporting  Service,  mimeographed 
release  October  11,  1927,  except  for  total  United  States  acreage,  which  is  from 
the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  Crop  Report  of  September  1,  1927. 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


11 


and  Idaho  greatly  exceeds  it.  New  York  is  the  only  one  of  the 
important  bean-producing  states  that  has  experienced  a  continuous 
decline  in  both  acreage  and  production  since  1924. 


Bean  Production,  Michigan,  New  York,  and  Colorado,  1914-1926, 
and  Idaho,  1919-1926 


Mich.        § 
to 

to  o> 
m 


o 

iH 

<o 

to 

<o 

c~ 

to 

CO 

o> 

CM 

»H 

fH 

3 

IO 

cm 

00 

<o 

r* 

Colo* 


8  S      3     S 

O    H  CM  CM 


8 


o        «- 
to        eo 

CM  r4 


r-t 

o> 

tO 

to 
o> 

(O 

49 

to 

o> 
to 

-<* 
H 
© 

•H 

CM 

to 

CM 

to 

00 

8 

to 

00 

r-l 

to 

3 

to 

CM 

to 

<o 

Idaho 


5000 
4000 

3000 
2000 


mlOOO 
o  900 
8  800 
H    700 

600 

500 


400 


500 


200 


100 


/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

1 

dICHIC 

JAN  - 

* 

v      V 

1 

• 

%  / 

/^ 

,' 

\/ 

*«*., 

i\ 

^t 

1 

.-*' 

,  \ 

t 

/ 

\\ 

NEW     vnDK 

/■ 

\ 

f  I 

V 

iK.   ♦ 

rt 

v^ 

> 

'     1 

\\ 

J 

' 

A 

*1 

\\ 

* 
• 

// 

1  ! 

.-' 

// 

/  COLORADO n\ 

i 

li 

U/-  IDAHO 

st 

1 

V 

1 

\ 

/ 

# 

«o         t- 


a> 


O  r-t 

CM  CM 

O  O 


5*  to  <0 

CM  Cvi  CM 

o  o»        o 


Fig.  3. — Large  increases  in  bean  production  since  1921  have  occurred  in 
Michigan,  Colorado,  and  Idaho.  Michigan  alone  contributed  almost  one-half 
of  the  total  increase  in  United  States  production  during  this  period. 


Data  from  table  10. 


12 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


VARIETIES  OF   BEANS 

Importance  of  Analysis  by  Varieties. — One  cannot  proceed  very 
far  in  an  economic  analysis  of  the  bean  situation  before  being  con- 
fronted with  the  problem  of  varieties.  Strictly  speaking,  there  is  no 
one  bean  situation;  instead  there  are  almost  as  many  bean  situations 
as  there  are  bean  varieties.    Most  varieties  of  beans  differ  in  market 

Present  Relative  Importance  of  the  Principal  Varieties  of  California  Beans 

Per  cent 
0  5  10  15  20  25  30 


Variety 
Lima 

1000 

Bags 

850 

Per 

cent 

31.5 

Pink 

600 

22.2 

Baby  Lima 

400 

14.8 

Blackeye 

360 

13.4 

Small  White 

200 

7.4 

Cranberry 

95 

3.5 

California  Red 

86 

3.2 

Red  Kidney 

35 

1.3 

Large  White 

25 

.9 

Bayo 

20 

.7 

Miscellaneous 

30 

1.1 

Total 

2700 

100.0 

Fig.  4. — Over  80  per  cent  of  California's  total  bean  production  is  composed 
of  four  varieties — Lima,  Pink,  Baby  Lima,  and  Blackeye — and  the  Lima  alone 
makes  up  nearly  one-third  of  the  total. 


Data  from  table  1. 


preferences  and  in  climatic  requirements  and  are,  therefore,  to  a 
considerable  extent,  distinct  commodities.  Thus  we  have  a  Lima 
situation,  a  Pink  situation,  and  a  Blackeye  situation.  An  analysis  of 
only  the  Pink  situation  would  mean  very  little  to  Lima  Growers,  yet 
Lima  growers  cannot  fully  understand  their  own  situation  if  they 
leave  Pinks  entirely  out  of  consideration.  The  interrelations  between 
most  of  the  varieties,  though  often  not  readily  apparent,  are  generally 
•sufficiently   close  to   affect   them   materially.     This  means  that   an 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


13 


adequate  study  of  the  California  bean  industry  must  consider  the 
important  varieties  grown  in  this  state  together  with  the  competing 
varieties  grown  in  other  states  and  in  foreign  countries. 

Main  Varieties  Produced  in  California. — The  ten  main  varieties  of 
beans  grown  in  California  are  the  Lima,  Pink,  Baby  Lima,7  Blackeye, 
Small  White,  Cranberry,  California  Red,  Red  Kidney,  Large  White,8 
and  Bayo.  The  relative  importance  of  these  varieties  at  the  present 
time  is  shown  in  figure  4.     Over  80  per  cent  of  our  present  normal 


Present  Normal  Production  of  Beans,  United  States  and  California, 

by  Varieties 


•ariety 

o.s. 

Calii 

1000 

Bags 

Small  White 

4100 

200 

Pinto 

1200 

0 

Lima 

850 

850 

Great  Northern 

800 

0 

Red  Kidney 

750 

35 

Pink 

630 

600 

Baby  Lima 

400 

400 

Blackeye 

360 

360 

Large  White 

360 

25 

California  Red 

100 

85 

Cranberry 

95 

95 

Bayo 

25 

20 

Others 

530 

30 

Total 

10200 

2700 

500 


1000  Bags 
1000 


United  State6 
California 


Fig.  5. — California  is  the  dominant  factor  in  the  production  of  seven 
of  the  ten  important  varieties  grown  in  this  state. 

Data  from  tables  1  and  11. 

production  of  2,700,000  bags  is  composed  of  four  varieties — Lima, 
Pink,  Baby  Lima,  and  Blackeye — and  the  Lima  alone  makes  up  nearly 
one-third  of  the  total. 

California  is  the  dominant  factor  in  the  production  of  seven  of 
these  ten  varieties — Lima,  Pink,  Baby  Lima,  Blackeye,  California  Red, 
Cranberry,  and  Bayo  (fig.  5).  These  seven  varieties  make  up  approxi- 
mately 90  per  cent  of  our  total  production.  Four  of  the  seven 
varieties  in  which  we  predominate — Lima,  Baby  Lima,  Backeye,  and 
Cranberry — are  grown  on  a  commercial  basis  in  California  only.  The 
other  three  varieties — Pink,  California  Red,  and  Bayo — are  grown  to 


7  Henderson  Bush. 


s  Lady  Washington. 


14  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

a  limited  extent  in  some  of  the  other  western  states ;  Pinks  and  Bayos 
are  grown  in  Arizona  and  New  Mexico,  and  Idaho  produced  California 
Reds  for  the  first  time  in  1926. 

Pinks  grown  in  California,  however,  meet  with  more  competition 
than  is  indicated  by  the  limited  production  of  this  variety  in  Arizona 
and  New  Mexico.  Pintos,  which  are  grown  extensively  in  Colorado 
and  New  Mexico,  compete  directly  with  Pinks  in  the  consuming 
markets.  The  normal  Pinto  production  at  the  present  time  amounts 
to  1,200,000  bags,  which  is  almost  twice  the  normal  production  of 
Pinks. 

California  is  a  relatively  unimportant  factor  in  the  production  of 
Small  Whites,  Red  Kidneys,  and  Large  Whites  (fig.  5).  Although 
Small  White  is  our  fifth  most  important  variety,  we  produce  only  5 
per  cent  of  the  total  United  States  crop.  Michigan  dominates  the 
market  in  the  production  of  this  variety,  producing  over  85  per  cent 
of  the  entire  crop.  New  York,  while  not  nearly  so  important  as 
Michigan,  produces  more  Small  Whites  than  California.  California 
likewise  produces  only  5  per  cent  of  the  United  States  crop  of  Red 
Kidneys.  In  this  variety,  as  in  Small  Whites,  Michigan  is  the  most 
important  state,  producing  nearly  60  per  cent  of  the  total  crop  of  Red 
Kidneys  grown  in  this  country,  while  New  York  produces  over  33  per 
cent.  In  the  production  of  Large  Whites,  Michigan,  New  York,  and 
Idaho,  in  the  order  named,  are  the  most  important  states.  California 
produces  only  7  per  cent  of  the  United  States  crop  of  this  variety. 

The  Great  Northern,  which  is  grown  almost  entirely  in  Idaho, 
Montana,  and  Wyoming,  competes  most  directly  with  the  Small  and 
Large  Whites.  Great  Northerns  are  the  fourth  most  important  variety 
of  beans  grown  in  the  United  States,  with  a  normal  production  at  the 
present  time  of  800,000  bags,  over  twice  the  normal  production  of 
Large  Whites. 

Changes  in  Production  of  California  Varieties. — The  relative 
changes  in  the  production  of  the  ten  important  varieties  of  California 
beans  from  1909  to  1926  are  shown  in  figures  6  and  7.  During  and 
immediately  following  the  war,  the  changes  in  the  production  of  the 
varieties  for  which  information  is  available  are  somewhat  similar. 
Beginning  in  1914  and  continuing  to  1917  or  1918,  the  trend  of  pro- 
duction was  upward.  This  upward  trend  is  particularly  pronounced 
in  those  varieties  in  demand  by  the  army  and  navy,  namely  Small  and 
Large  Whites,  and  to  some  extent  Pinks.  The  downward  adjustment 
after  the  war  reached  the  low  point  for  most  varieties  in  1920. 

A  comparison  of  the  present  normal  production  of  the  several 
varieties  with   the   pre-war   production   shows   material   differences. 


BuL-  4441  BEANS  15 

The  present  production  of  Limas,  Large  Whites,  Small  Whites,  and 
Bayos  is  smaller  than  during  the  period  from  1909-1914.  We  are 
producing  only  one-fifth  as  many  Large  Whites  and  Bayos,  three- 
fourths  as  many  Limas  and  four-fifths  as  many  Small  Whites  as  we 
did  before  the  war.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  producing  two  and 
one-half  times  as  many  Blackeyes  and  one  and  one-half  times  as  many 
Pinks.  We  are  also  producing  substantially  more  Baby  Limas,  Red 
Kidneys,  California  Reds,  and  Cranberries.9 

Significant  changes  in  the  production  of  Baby  Limas,  Large 
Whites,  and  Bayos  have  taken  place  during  recent  years:  the  pro- 
duction of  Baby  Limas  has  increased  rapidly;  the  production  of  Large 
Whites  and  Bayos  has  been  greatly  reduced. 

Prior  to  1924  Baby  Limas  were  produced  almost  exclusively  in  the 
San  Fernando  Valley  in  Los  Angeles  County.  The  high  prices  of 
Baby  Limas  between  1922  and  1925  compared  with  the  prices  of  most 
other  varieties  were  largely  responsible  for  its  spread  into  the  Lompoc, 
Santa  Maria,  Upper  San  Joaquin,  and  Sacramento  valleys.  As  a 
result  of  this  expansion  the  production  of  Baby  Limas  increased  from 
225,000  bags  in  1924  to  575,000  bags  in  1926.  It  is  not  likely,  however, 
that  a  similar  increase  will  occur  during  the  next  few  years.  The 
production  in  1926  was  sufficiently  large  to  cause  a  sharp  decline  in 
prices.  These  low  prices  are  not  conducive  to  a  further  expansion  in 
acreage.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  acreage  planted  in  1927 
was  one-fourth  smaller  than  in  1926.  Not  all  of  this  reduction  in 
acreage,  however,  was  a  result  of  the  low  prices.  Many  growers  who 
experimented  with  Baby  Limas  in  1926  found  that  they  were  not 
adapted  to  their  conditions.  The  resulting  low  yield  would  have 
prevented  satisfactory  profits  even  if  prices  had  been  high.  Another 
factor  which  may  tend  to  check  further  increases  in  Baby  Lima  pro- 
duction is  that  Baby  Limas  are  more  susceptible  to  attacks  of  the  pod 
borer  than  are  other  varieties. 

California  farmers  have  almost  discontinued  growing  Large  Whites. 
Production  has  declined  each  year  for  the  past  four  years;  and  the 
decline  during  the  past  three  years  has  been  very  great.  This  recent 
decline  in  production  has  been  due  to  relatively  low  prices  caused 
largely  by  greatly  increased  competition  of  Oriental  beans  and  Great 
Northerns. 

The  trend  of  Bayo  production  during  recent  years  has  also  been 
downward.    In  the  Delta  district  in  which  Bayos  are  largely  grown, 


9  Before  the  war  these  varieties  were  included  in  miscellaneous,  as  they  were 
not  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  listing  them  separately. 


16 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 


Production  of  Limas,  Baby  Limas,  Small  Whites,  Large  Whites,  and 
Red  Kidneys,  California,  1909-1926 


euuu 

LI 

MA  - 

1000 

600 

/ 

400 
300 

/ 

BABY    I 

.IMA 

"O 

4 

^mrm 

y 

200 
100 

*" 

/ 

1             s 

1000 

800 
(0 

2600 

400 
£300 


200 


O  100 

h     80 

60 


40 
30 

20 

i 
10 
60 

40 
30 

20 


SM> 

W.L  V 

VHITE-/ 

// 

\ 

i  \ 

/ 
t 

i\ 

v 

^ 

/ 

I  \ 
1   \ 

A 

\ 

\   / 

*J 

j 

\RGE 

wi- 

IITEJ 

I  V 

i 

t 

/ 

*•»» 

\ 
\ 

i 

\ 

w 

J 

k    \ 

V    \ 

^ 

t     \ 

\ 

/ 

W 

i 
\ 

/ 

f 

\ 
\ 
\ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

1 

i 

\ 

V 

/ 

\ 

J 

RED 

KID 

NEY 

^y 

^v 

/ 

1 

\ 

/ 

/ 

r 

\ 

/ 

g       < 

5        - 

•         0 

5      < 

>  2 

>  < 

Y        u 
i!       < 

>       c 

3          t 

5       I 

0       c 
\      I 

5      J 

i    i 

0 

1         0 

1   5 

;        < 

3     3 
D      2 

t      * 

1        <v 

;      o 

I 

Fig.  6. — During  recent  years  the  production  of  Baby  Limas  has  increased 
rapidly,  while  the  production  of  Large  Whites  has  steadily  declined,  as  has  also 
the  production  of  Bayos,  which  is  shown  in  figure  7.  The  other  seven  varieties 
which  are  shown  in  these  two  figures  have  exhibited  no  pronounced  upward 
or  downward  trend  in  production. 


Data  from  table  1. 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


17 


Production  of  Pinks,  Blackeyes,  California  Beds,  Cranberries,  and 
Bayos,  California,  1909-1926 


1500 

1000 
800 

i 

*^w 

600 

400 
300 

200 

Plh 

»*-> 

V 

/ 

\ 

/ 

^ 

r 

500 
400 

300 
200 

O"oo 

I80 
60 

fe   40 
30 

/ 

< 

^ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

s 

/ 

*      E 

SLAC 

<EYE 

A 

/ 

■■■'••«. 

*•'«, 

/ 

0^ 

\ 

*»«« 

f 

\ 

/ 

\ 

1 
1 

\ 

/ 

% 

\ 

1 

1 

\ 

/ 

CAL 

FORf 

JIA    R 

a>* 

\ 

1 
1 
I 

\ 

__. 

f 

\ 

1 
f 

THOUSANDS 

*»     &           <J>       CD    o              ^J 
DO          O       O    O            O 

/ 

\ 

"^ 

I 

/ 

\ 

y 

V 

/ 

\ 

*r- 

/ 

CI 

IANB 

ERR1 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

150 

100 

60 
60 

40 
30 

E 

JAYO 

20 
I 

>      c 
I     2 

> 

i    2 

c 
»      < 

j       < 

2      - 

t        - 

5      < 

>      5 

3         J; 

>         < 

0 

>        < 

9       0 

i     5 

>        c 

3     j 

5   f 

ft        c 

S     { 

a        C 

!  ! 

i  ! 

J    8 

Fig.  7. — The  production  of  each  of  the  ten  varieties  shown  in  this  and  figure  6 
is  characterized  by  wide  fluctuations  from  year  to  year. 


Data  from  table  1. 


18 


UNIVEKSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


asparagus  has  replaced  a  considerable  acreage  of  beans.  This  replace- 
ment is  a  fairly  permanent  one,  since  asparagus  fields  are  not  usually 
planted  to  other  crops  for  ten  years.  For  the  first  two  years  beans 
are  generally  grown  between  the  rows  of  asparagus,  but  after  the 
crop  begins  to  produce,  intercrops  are  not  practicable. 

TABLE  1 

Bean  Production  in  California  by  Varieties,  1909-1926 

(Thousands  of  100-pound  bags,  i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

Lima 

Baby 
Lima 

Pink 

Small 
White 

Large 
White 

Black- 
eye 

Bayo 

Cran- 
berry 

Cali- 
fornia 
Red 

Red 
Kid- 
ney 

Miscel- 
laneous 

Total 

1909 

1,150 

325 

225 

300 

80 

100 

100 

2,280 

1910 

1,100 
1,200 
1,050 

250 
710 

298 

250 
215 
215 

150 

75 
63 

100 
225 
204 

75 
150 

65 

100 
150 
118 

2,025 

1911 

2,725 

1912 

2,013 

1913 

925 

250 

40 

115 

80 

60 

75 

120 

1,665 

1914 

1,500 

500 

325 

100 

150 

75 

130 

125 

2,905 

1915 

1,750 
1,600 
1,224 

650 

725 

1,200 

600 
410 
900 

155 
300 
610 

405 
275 
300 

85 
125 
125 

125 
100 
150 

98 
125 
200 

3,868 

1916 

3,660 

1917 

116 

135 

20 

4,980 

1918 

1,545 

134 

721 

978 

618 

463 

118 

103 

154 

26 

290 

5,150 

1919 

725 

275 

600 

675 

425 

200* 

30* 

95 

50 

35 

25 

3,135 

1920 

820 

255 

255 

150 

30 

180 

21 

30 

30 

30 

15* 

1,816 

1921 

700 

120 

600 

120* 

55* 

400 

50* 

60 

125 

50* 

20 

2,300 

1922 

1,200 

150 

600 

325 

110 

300 

25 

100 

75 

60 

25 

2,970 

1923 

800 

220 

625 

350 

100 

275 

25 

150 

50 

40 

30* 

2,665 

1924 

467 

225 

250 

65 

40 

250 

17* 

60 

50 

20 

42* 

1,486 

1925 

790 

290 

650 

200 

25 

400 

13* 

65 

125 

30 

26* 

2,614 

1926 

1,250 

575 

600 

200 

15 

460 

25 

100 

90* 

45 

45* 

3,405 

Normal! 

850 

400 

600 

200 

25 

360 

20 

95 

85 

35 

30 

2,700 

*  Writers'  estimate. 

t  Present  normal  production  estimated  by  inspection  of  graphs  drawn  from  data.  A  simple  arith- 
metic average  of  two  or  more  years  could  not  be  used  in  obtaining  a  figure  representative  of  the  normal 
production  because  of  wide  variations  in  the  data. 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1909-1919,  California  Packing  Corporation  Annuals, 
1916  and  1922.  Years  1920-1926  compiled  by  the  Standardization  Committee  of 
the  California  Bean  Dealers  Association,  except  Lima  1919-1926  and  Baby  Lima 
1924-1926,  compiled  by  the  Lima  Bean  Growers  Association. 


Although  Lima  production  has  shown  no  upward  or  downward 
trend  during  the  past  few  years,  it  is  likely  that  the  future  trend  will 
be  downward.  The  heavy  plantings  of  walnut  and  citrus  trees  in 
Ventura  and  Orange  counties  in  recent  years  will  gradually  replace  a 
considerable  acreage  of  Lima  beans.10  In  these  two  counties,  and  to 
a  more  limited  extent  in  Santa  Barbara,  Los  Angeles,  and  San  Diego 
counties,  young  walnut  orchards  are  usually  intercropped  with  Limas 
up  to  8  or  10  years  of  age,  and  citrus  orchards  up  to  4  or  6  years  of 


10  In  1927  over  80  per  cent  of  the  total  Lima  acreage  in  the  state  was  in  these 
two  counties. 


Bul.  444]  BEANS  19 

age.11  The  combined  non-bearing  acreage  of  walnut  and  citrus  trees 
in  Ventura  and  Orange  counties  in  1927  amounted  to  approximately 
20,000  acres.12  That  portion  of  the  20,000  acres  which  is  now  inter- 
cropped with  Limas  will  be  permanently  out  of  Lima  production  within 
the  next  ten  years.  Furthermore,  trees  have  been  planted  upon  the 
best  bean  land,  so  that  the  effect  of  this  displacement  will  be  even  more 
pronounced  upon  production  than  upon  acreage. 

The  other  varieties — Pinks,  Blackeyes,  Small  Whites,  California 
Reds,  and  Cranberries — have  exhibited  no  pronounced  upward  or 
downward  trend  in  production  during  the  past  few  years,  and  prob- 
ably the  future  production  of  these  varieties  will  continue  to  fluctuate 
around  the  present  normal  production. 

Factors  Causing  Wide  Fluctuation  in  Production  from  Year  to 
Year. — The  production  of  each  of  these  varieties  is  characterized  by 
wide  fluctuations  from  year  to  year.  These  fluctuations  in  production 
depend  upon  the  acreage  planted  and  upon  the  climatic  conditions 
during  the  growing  season.  Changes  in  the  acreage  of  each  variety 
planted  are  determined  by  many  factors,  which  vary  from  section  to 
section  and  from  year  to  year.  Sometimes  the  majority  of  them  act 
in  the  same  direciton,  resulting  in  radical  increases  or  decreases  in 
acreage;  at  other  times  some  act  in  one  direction  and  some  in  the 
opposite  direction,  thus  offsetting  the  influence  of  each  other,  and 
as  a  result  but  little  change  in  the  total  acreage  of  the  state  occurs. 
The  interactions  of  these  factors  are  so  complex  that  an  attempt  to 
measure  the  influence  of  each  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this  study.  It  is 
desirable,  however,  to  discuss  briefly  the  more  important  factors  which 
influence  changes  in  acreage  from  year  to  year. 

1.  The  prices  received  for  each  variety  of  beans  during  the 
previous  year  or  two  as  compared  with  those  of  competing  crops  have 
an  important  influence  upon  the  acreage  of  the  different  varieties  of 
beans  that  growers  decide  to  plant.  In  many  of  the  bean  districts 
much  of  the  land  is  adapted  to  the  production  of  other  crops.  If  the 
prices  of  these  competing  crops  are  high  as  compared  with  those  of 
beans  some  of  the  land  which  is  normally  planted  to  beans  will  be 
planted  to  these  other  crops;  and  conversely,  if  the  prices  of  the 
competing  crops  are  low  as  compared  with  those  of  beans,  the  bean 


11  Beans  have  proved  to  be  a  very  good  intercrop  in  young  orchards.  They 
do  not  seem  to  injure  the  trees,  and  approximately  a  full  crop  can  be  raised 
among  young  trees.  Furthermore,  the  presence  of  trees  is  not  a  great  hindrance 
in  handling  beans.  During  the  past  five  years  the  returns  from  Limas  planted 
between  young  trees  have  paid  the  full  cost  of  developing  many  orchards. 

12  Kaufman,  E.  E.  California  Crop  Report  for  1926.  California  Dept.  Agr. 
Spec.  Pub.  74:30-31.     1927. 


20  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

acreage  will  be  increased.  In  general  it  is  the  prices  obtained  during 
the  preceding  year  which  have  had  the  most  influence  upon  growers' 
actions  in  increasing  or  decreasing  their  bean  acreage.  For  example, 
in  1926  relatively  high  prices  were  obtained  for  Small  Whites; 
consequently  many  growers  increased  their  acreage  of  this  variety  in 
1927.  On  the  other  hand,  the  estimated  acreage  of  Baby  Limas  in 
1927  was  one-fourth  smaller  than  in  1926.13  This  reduction  in  Baby 
Lima  acreage  was  caused  largely  by  the  unsatisfactory  price  obtained 
for  the  1926  crop.  Likewise,  the  decrease  of  20  per  cent  in  the  bean 
acreage  in  the  Modesto  and  Turlock  irrigation  districts  in  1927  was 
largely  due  to  the  relatively  low  price  of  Blackeyes  in  1926.  Sweet 
potatoes,  tomatoes,  and  grain  sorghums  replaced  a  considerable  acreage 
of  Blackeyes  in  these  districts.  In  the  Oxnard  district  of  Ventura 
County,  sugar  beets  replaced  several  thousand  acres  of  Limas  in  1927, 
because  of  the  low  prices  of  Limas  in  1926  and  the  favorable  price 
outlook  for  sugar  beets.  On  the  other  hand,  many  farmers  in  the 
Salinas  Valley  increased  their  acreage  of  beans  and  reduced  their 
acreage  of  barley  in  1927  because  of  the  low  prices  of  barley  the 
previous  year. 

Eelative  price  changes  do  not,  of  course,  cause  all  farmers  to 
increase  or  decrease  their  bean  acreage.  In  the  dry-farming  districts 
in  the  central  coast  section  beans  are  grown  regularly  in  rotation  with 
grain.  Here  it  is  a  question  of  either  growing  beans  or  summer- 
fallowing.  As  long  as  the  price  of  beans  is  sufficient  to  pay  the 
additional  expenses  of  growing  them  as  compared  with  summer- 
fallowing  they  will  continue  to  be  planted.  Again,  in  practically 
every  bean-growing  section  there  is  land  that  is  particularly  adapted 
to  growing  beans.  Even  at  very  low  prices  farmers  on  this  land  can 
grow  beans  more  profitably  than  other  crops. 

2.  The  amount  and  distribution  of  the  rainfall  prior  to  planting 
has  an  important  effect  upon  the  acreage  that  will  be  planted  to  beans 
in  the  dry-farming  sections.  In  these  sections  favorable  moisture 
conditions  prior  to  planting  tend  to  increase  the  acreage ;  unfavorable 
moisture  conditions  tend  to  reduce  it.  The  dry  year  of  1924  is  an 
excellent  example  of  how  drastically  acreage  is  reduced  when  moisture 
conditions  are  unfavorable  for  planting  beans.  In  that  year  the  total 
bean  acreage  in  California  was  nearly  one-third  less  than  in  1923. 
Practically  every  variety  was  affected,  although  not  in  the  same 
degree,  as  is  shown  by  the  drop  in  production  (figs.  6  and  7). 

The  effect  upon  acreage  of  moisture  conditions  prior  to  planting  is 
well  shown  in  the  case  of  Limas.    The  acreage  of  Limas  planted  in  the 

!3  See  table  9,  page  56. 


Bul.  444]  BEANS  21 

dry-farming  sections  is  almost  wholly  dependent  upon  moisture  con- 
ditions and  very  little  affected  by  price.  On  much  of  the  dry  land 
in  the  Lima  district  it  is  either  a  question  of  planting  Limas  or  leaving 
the  land  idle.  If  moisture  conditions  are  favorable  to  a  relatively 
high  production,  a  large  acreage  will  be  planted  even  though  prices 
are  low.  But  if  the  amount  and  distribution  of  the  rainfall  has  not 
been  sufficient  to  produce  a  crop,  the  acreage  will  be  greatly  reduced 
even  though  prices  are  high.  For  example,  the  high  prices  of  Limas 
in  1924  resulted  in  only  a  small  increase  in  Lima  acreage  in  1925, 
and  this  mostly  on  irrigated  land,  because  the  moisture  conditions 
prior  to  planting  in  1925  were  almost  as  unfavorable  as  in  1924.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  low  prices  of  Limas  in  1926  did  not  reduce  the 
acreage  planted  in  1927  except  on  irrigated  land,  because  of  the 
favorable  moisture  conditions  at  the  time  of  planting. 

These  two  factors,  relative  prices  and  moisture  conditions,  are 
generally  the  more  important  ones  affecting  changes  in  the  bean 
acreage  in  California.  Other  factors  are  usually  present,  and  in  some 
instances  they  exert  considerable  influence,  but  they  are  not  generally 
as  widespread  as  the  two  factors  just  discussed.  In  the  rich  bottom 
land  of  the  Salinas  Valley,  for  example,  the  fact  that  beans  can  be 
planted  later  than  most  crops  is  responsible  for  wide  variations  in  the 
acreage.  In  1927  two  large  companies  were  unable  to  get  their  land 
ready  in  time  for  lettuce,  so  they  planted  beans.  The  presence  of 
insect  pests  or  disease  affecting  either  beans  or  the  competing  crops 
also  causes  the  acreage  of  beans  to  vary.  A  large  company  which  has 
been  growing  sugar  beets  in  the  Salinas  Valley  for  years,  recently 
planted  all  of  their  land  to  beans  because  their  sugar  beets  have  been 
materially  injured  by  insects  for  the  past  few  years.  Again,  in  certain 
sections  of  Stanislaus  County,  nematode,  weavil,  and  root  rot,  which 
affect  beans,  cause  some  change  in  the  bean  acreage  from  year  to  year. 

Even  with  the  same  acreage  planted,  considerable  fluctuations  in 
production  occur  because  of  differences  in  yield  due  to  climatic  con- 
ditions during  the  growing  season.  For  example,  the  production  of 
Limas  was  greatly  reduced  in  1920  because  of  the  heat  wave  that 
prevailed  in  southern  California  during  the  last  two  weeks  of  July 
and  the  first  two  or  three  days  of  August.14  On  the  other  hand,  the 
average  yield  per  acre  of  Limas  in  1922  with  a  very  favorable  growing 
season  was  nearly  double  that  of  1920. 

The  practical  significance  of  the  preceding  discussion  is  that 
growers  cannot,  at  least  for  the  present,  forecast  accurately  at  the 

i*  Anonymous.     Lima  harvesting  begun.      California  Bean  Growers   Journal 
1920. 


22  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

time  of  planting  the  prices  which  will  prevail  for  the  various  varieties 
of  beans  after  they  are  harvested.  The  price  for  which  a  given  variety 
will  sell  is  determined  largely  by  the  production  of  that  variety  and 
of  competing  varieties.  But  the  production  of  each  variety  during  the 
coming  year  is  an  indeterminate  factor  at  planting  time. 

The  prices  that .  growers  should  consider  when  increasing  or 
decreasing  their  acreage  of  a  particular  variety  or  when  changing 
from  one  variety  to  another  are  the  normal  prices  which  have  pre- 
vailed over  a  period  of  years  as  modified  by  any  underlying  trends 
which  are  likely  to  cause  them  to  change  in  the  future.  The  price 
obtained  for  only  the  last  year 's  crop  is  not  a  reliable  indication  of  the 
price  which  will  be  obtained  for  the  following  year's  crop.  The  most 
reliable  bases  for  determining  what  varieties  of  beans  to  grow  are  the 
normal  prices  of  the  different  varieties,  together  with  the  cost  of 
producing  them.  Yield  per  acre  is  the  most  important  cause  for 
variations  in  costs.  A  rough  method,  therefore,  of  determining  what 
varieties  of  beans  to  grow  is  to  compare  the  gross  returns  per  acre, 
by  multiplying  the  normal  prices  by  the  average  yields.  The  result 
can  then  be  modified  by  additions  of  any  special  costs  involved  in  the 
production  of  a  particular  variety. 

In  this  connection  it  should  be  emphasized  that  changes  from  one 
variety  of  beans  to  another  should  be  made  slowly  and  only  after  tests 
have  demonstrated  that  the  variety  in  question  is  well  adapted  to  the 
locality. 

MARKETSis  AND  COMPETITION  BETWEEN  VARIETIES 

Beans  have  the  essential  characteristics  necessary  to  wide  distri- 
bution. They  are  non-perishable,  easily  transported,  and  in  general 
demand.  Consequently  beans  are  a  staple  commodity  in  all  markets. 
They  can  be  purchased  in  practically  every  grocery  store  in  the 
country.  This  wide  distribution  means  that  California  beans  compete 
directly  with  similar  varieties  grown  in  other  states  and  to  a  consider- 
able extent  with  similar  varieties  grown  in  foreign  countries. 

All  varieties  of  beans,  however,  do  not  compete  directly  with  every 
other  variety  in  the  consuming  market.  Most  varieties  differ  in 
appearance  and  flavor  and  have,  therefore,  their  own  particular 
markets.  Some  varieties  are  not  widely  distributed  because  the 
demand  for  them  is  limited  to  certain  classes  of  people. 


is  Information  on  the  markets  of  the  various  varieties  of  beans  was  obtained 
from:  Hendry,  G.  W.,  Bean  culture  in  California.  California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui. 
294:11-35.  rev.  ed.  1921  (out  of  print);  United  States  Tariff  Commission.  Sur- 
vey of  the  American  bean  industry,  pp.  15-19.  1920 ;  and  interviews  with  various 
bean  dealers  throughout  the  state. 


B^L.  444]  BEANS  23 

The  extent  of  the  competition  between  the  different  varieties  of 
beans  in  the  consuming  markets  can  be  determined  by  a  comparison 
of  their  relative  price  changes.  When  the  prices  of  two  varieties 
of  beans  move  closely  together  it  is  good  evidence  that  consumers 
substitute  one  variety  for  the  other ;  they  constantly  tend  to  buy  the 
lower-priced  variety.  But  if  the  prices  of  two  varieties  stay  far  apart 
for  any  length  of  time  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  competition 
between  them  is  not  very  close.  In  such  cases,  while  some  consumers 
may  buy  the  lower-priced  variety  instead  of  the  higher-priced,  the 
substitution  is  not  sufficiently  general  to  bring  the  prices  of  the  two 
varieties  together. 

Limas  and  Baby  Limas. — The  main  market  areas  for  Limas  and 
Baby  Limas  are  still  fairly  distinct.  Limas  are  consumed  mainly  in 
the  northern  states  and  Baby  Limas  in  the  southern  states.  Some 
overlapping  of  market  areas,  however,  occurs.  And  in  these  overlap- 
ping market  areas  the  two  varieties  compete  directly  with  each  other. 
Consumers  constantly  substitute  the  lower-priced  variety  for  the 
higher.  The  substitution  in  the  overlapping  areas  has  been  great 
enough  to  keep  the  prices  of  the  two  varieties  in  close  adjustment. 
The  close  relationship  between  the  monthly  prices  of  Limas  and  Baby 
Limas  is  shown  in  figure  8.  The  general  movements  of  the  prices  of 
these  two  varieties  are  almost  identical.  On  only  a  few  occasions  have 
they  been  far  out  of  line. 

The  widest  differences  between  the  prices  of  Limas  and  Baby 
Limas  occurred  in  1922-23  and  1926-27.  In  1922-23  the  price  of 
Baby  Limas  was  26  per  cent  above  the  price  of  Limas.  As  compared 
with  the  1921  crop,  the  1922  crop  of  Limas  was  72  per  cent  larger, 
while  the  1922  crop  of  Baby  Limas  was  only  25  per  cent  larger.  The 
greatly  increased  crop  of  Limas  could  not  all  be  sold  in  the  usual 
markets  at  a  price  comparable  to  that  obtained  for  the  relatively 
smaller  crop  of  Baby  Limas.  Limas  were  sent  to  markets  that  usually 
took  only  Baby  Limas,  but  these  markets  would  take  them  only  at  a 
price  lower  than  that  paid  for  Baby  Limas.  In  1926-27  the  opposite 
situation  occurred.  In  that  year  the  price  of  Limas  was  20  per  cent 
above  the  price  of  Baby  Limas.  As  compared  with  the  1925  crop,  the 
1926  crop  of  Limas  was  58  per  cent  larger,  but  the  1926  crop  of  Baby 
Limas  was  98  per  cent  larger.  The  relatively  larger  crop  of  Baby 
Limas  had  to  seek  an  outlet  in  markets  unfamiliar  with  them,  and 
these  markets  would  not  buy  them  except  at  a  discount  under  Limas. 

California  has  a  virtual  monopoly  in  the  production  of  Limas  and 
Baby  Limas.  No  other  state  in  the  Union  produces  them  on  a  com- 
mercial scale.    They  do  not  compete  to  any  considerable  extent  with 


24 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


Monthly  Prices  of  Limas  and  Baby  Limas,  F.O.B.  California, 
September,  1919-August,  1927 


16.00 
15.00 
14.00 
13.00 
12.00 
11.00 
10.00 

9.00 


4.00 


+ — V-yLIMA 

a/--''' 

/      * 

1        \ 

1         \       A. 

RARV      UMAi 

t\ 

1 

1 

rv    \ 

ip^. 

\   n 

Vs 

\u 

V     \ 

\A  » 

r 

h 

1 

/ L 

\% 

V, 

ji 

i 

1 

X 

\ 

X 

\      t 

\ 

i 

i 
1 

V 

1920 


1922 

,rop  year 


1923 


1924 


Fig.  8. — The  close  relation  between  the  monthly  prices  of  Limas  and  Baby 
Limas  indicates  that  they  compete  directly  in  the  consuming  markets. 

Data  from  table  2. 

the  other  varieties  of  beans  in  the  consuming  markets.  The  only- 
competition  that  our  lima  varieties  have  is  from  limited  imports  of 
Limas  from  Madagascar. 

Pinks. — The  Pink  bean  is  widely  distributed.  The  principal 
markets,  however,  are  in  the  southwestern  states  and  Cuba.  The 
Mexican  population,  which  is  relatively  large  in  these  areas,  demands 
a  low-priced  colored  bean.  The  competition  from  Pinks  grown  in 
other  states  is  small.  Approximately  95  per  cent  of  the  United  States 
normal  production  of  630,000  bags  is  produced  in  California.  The 
remainder  is  produced  in  Arizona  and  New  Mexico.  Pintos,  which 
are  grown  in  Colorado,  New  Mexico,  and  Wyoming,  are  the  chief 
competitors  of  California  Pinks.  The  prices  of  these  two  varieties 
generally  move  together.  If  there  is  an  unusually  small  or  large  crop 
of  either  one,  however,  prices  get  out  of  line.  In  1924,  for  example, 
Pinks  sold  for  considerably  more  than  Pintos.  In  that  year  the  pro- 
duction of  Pinks  was  small,  while  the  production  of  Pintos  was 
approximately  normal.  There  were  evidently  enough  markets  that 
preferred  Pinks  to  absorb  a  small  crop  even  though  they  had  to  pay 
more  for  them. 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


25 


TABLE  2 

Monthly  Prices  of  Limas  and  Baby  Limas,  F.O.B.  California, 

September,  1919-August,  1927 

(Dollars  per  bag) 


Limas 

Crop  year 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

1919-1920 

12.22 

13.90 

13.97 

13.50 

12.75 

11.50 

10.38 

10.30 

10.46 

11.00 

11.43 

10.96 

1920-1921 

9.11 

6.78 

6.75 

5.88 

5.85 

5.92 

5.81 

5.53 

5.52 

5.49 

5.28 

5.41 

1921-1922 

5.84 

5.72 

6.00 

6.42 

6.53 

7.90 

8.92 

9.06 

9.05 

9.20 

9.00 

7.88 

1922-1923 

5.58 

7.03 

7.73 

8.43 

8.72 

8.83 

8.81 

8.79 

7.54 

7.43 

7.33 

7.51 

1923-1924 

8.34 

8.33 

9.36 

9.33 

9.89 

10.66 

11.46 

11.81 

11.54 

11.59 

11.72 

11.97 

1924-1925 

12.45 

13.54 

12.98 

12.90 

13.35 

13.96 

14.23 

14.37 

14.42 

14.70 

14.92 

14.81 

1925-1926 

14.63 

12.39 

10.82 

10.18 

10.62 

10.41 

10.06 

8.98 

7.56 

7.79 

7.80 

7.44 

1926-1927 

7.00 

6.87 

6.42 

5.93 

6.06 

5.99 

5.95 

5.95 

5.86 

5.70 

5.70 

5.75 

Baby  Limas 

Crop  year 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

1919-1920 

10.81 

12.40 

12.40 

12.30 

12.82 

12.86 

10.00 

10.00 

10.40 

10.90 

11.42 

10.96 

1920-1921 

8.87 

6.52 

6.36 

5.45 

5.50 

5.56 

5.39 

5.05 

4.80 

4.61 

4.27 

4.37 

1921-1922 

4.99 

5.14 

5.68 

6.45 

6.50 

7.57 

8.92 

9.06 

9.11 

9.23 

9.11 

8.08 

1922-1923 

6.03 

7.84 

9.15 

10.73 

10.88 

10.96 

10.82 

10.83 

10.45 

10.50 

10.50 

10.22 

1923-1924 

9.37 

8.73 

10.53 

10.07 

10.29 

10.82 

11.50 

11.62 

11.17 

10.68 

10.65 

10.79 

1924-1925 

11.22 

12.54 

12.25 

12.04 

12.47 

13.07 

13.05 

13.07 

13.17 

13.28 

13.38 

13.38 

1925-1926 

13.38 

10.95 

10.41 

10.07 

10.54 

10.32 

9.66 

8.78 

7.56 

7.86 

7.70 

7.28 

1926-1927 

6.72 

6.24 

5.33 

4.94 

4.92 

4.37 

4.31 

4.38 

4.87 

5.08 

5.35 

5.35 

Sources  of  data:  Compiled  from  the  weekly  quotations  for  rail  shipments, 
f.o.b.  California,  published  in  the  weekly  issues  of  the  California  Fruit  News. 

The  rapid  increase  in  Pinto  production  during  recent  years  has 
meant  that  Pinks  have  been  subjected  to  more  and  more  competition 
in  the  consuming  markets.  At  the  present  time  the  normal  production 
of  Pintos  amounts  to  1,200,000  bags.  This  is  almost  twice  the  normal 
production  of  Pinks. 

Blackeyes. — The  principal  markets  for  Blackeyes  are  in  the 
southern  states.  The  negro  population  prefers  Blackeyes  to  all  other 
varieties.  Limited  quantities  of  Blackeyes  are  also  exported  to  Cuba 
and  Porto  Rico.  The  only  competitors  of  Blackeyes  from  California 
are  the  small  quantity  of  Blackeyes  grown  in  the  southern  states  for 
local  consumption16  and  a  limited  quantity  imported  from  Mexico. 

Small  Whites  and  Large  Whites. — Small  and  Large  Whites  are 
widely  distributed  throughout  the  United  States.  The  American 
housewife  generally  prefers  the  white  to  the  colored  varieties.  There 
is  an  important  difference,  however,  between  the  utilization  of  Small 


i6  United  States  Tariff  Commission. 
18.    1920. 


Survey  of  the  American  bean  industry. 


26  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

and  Large  Whites  which  has  had  a  considerable  effect  upon  the  prices 
paid  for  them  during  recent  years.  Canning  furnishes  an  outlet  for 
a  large  volume  of  Small  Whites.  This  variety  is  the  principal  bean 
canned.  Large  Whites  cannot  be  canned  because  they  disintegrate 
rapidly  in  cooking.  In  1925  the  total  United  States  pack  of  canned 
beans  amounted  to  nearly  sixteen  and  a  half  million  cases  as  compared 
with  eleven  million  cases  in  1919,  an  increase  of  approximately  50  per 
cent.  This  rapid  increase  in  the  demand  for  canned  beans  has  been 
an  important  cause  of  the  higher  prices  obtained  for  Small  Whites  as 
compared  with  Large  Whites  since  1922.  Between  1909  and  1922 
the  prices  of  Small  and  Large  Whites  moved  very  closely  together 
(fig.  10,  p.  29).  But  beginning  in  1923  and  continuing  to  the  present 
time  the  prices  of  Small  Whites  have  been  from  seventy-five  cents  to 
a  dollar  per  bag  higher  than  those  of  Large  Whites.  Small  Whites 
compete  with  Large  Whites  only  in  the  dry-bean  markets.  The  rapid 
increase  in  the  utilization  of  Small  Whites  in  canning  has  taken  a 
relatively  large  volume  of  Small  Whites  off  the  dry -bean  market. 
Those  remaining  find  a  market  that  is  willing  to  pay  a  premium  for 
them  over  Large  Whites. 

In  addition  to  the  increased  use  of  Small  Whites  in  canning,  two 
other  factors  have  contributed  to  the  lower  prices  received  for  Large 
Whites.  (1)  a  considerable  quantity  of  Large  White  beans  have  been 
imported  from  the  Orient  during  recent  years.17  These  beans  are  hand 
picked  and  of  excellent  quality.  This  Oriental  Large  White  bean  has 
been  sold  at  prices  considerably  lower  than  those  obtained  for  Small 
Whites.  (2)  The  Great  Northern,  which  is  grown  in  Idaho,  Montana, 
Wyoming,  and  Colorado,  competes  closely  with  the  Large  and  Small 
Whites.  The  production  of  this  variety  has  been  increasing  rapidly, 
and  for  the  past  two  years  it  has  been  selling  at  approximately  the 
same  price  as  Large  Whites. 

Cranberries. — The  market  for  Cranberries  is  practically  confined 
to  the  mining  districts  of  the  eastern  states.  Since  the  beginning  of 
the  war  it  has  replaced  a  similar  variety  imported  from  Austria. 
Cranberries  grown  in  California  meet  with  practically  no  competition 
in  this  market.  Only  a  very  small  amount  of  Cranberries  are  pro- 
duced in  other  states,  and  other  varieties  of  beans  are  not  substituted 
for  Cranberries  to  any  considerable  extent. 

California  Reds. — The  principal  domestic  markets  for  California 
Reds  are  in  the  southwestern  states.  A  considerable  proportion  of  the 
California  Reds  are  exported  to  the  West  Indies,  mainly  to  Cuba.    Up 


7  See  page  49. 


Bul.  444]  BEANS  27 

to  1926  California  had  practically  no  competition  in  the  production 
of  this  variety,  but  in  that  year  Idaho  produced  a  considerable  volume 
of  California  Reds. 

Red  Kidneys. — As  with  Small  Whites,  canning  provides  an  outlet 
for  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  Red  Kidney  production.  Red 
Kidneys  are  used  extensively  in  the  manufacture  of  chile  con  carne. 
The  bulk  of  the  Red  Kidneys  produced  in  this  state  are  exported 
to  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,  where  they  are  considered  somewhat  of  a 
delicacy.  When  the  Michigan  and  New  York  crops  are  short, 
however,  they  are  sent  to  the  eastern  markets. 

Bayos. — The  Bayo  market  is  practically  limited  to  the  lumber  and 
mining  camps  on  the  Pacific  Coast.  The  market  for  Bayos  is,  there- 
fore, relatively  small.  The  production  of  a  few  thousand  bags  above 
normal  results  in  a  material  decline  in  prices.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  the  production  is  below  normal,  prices  rise  rapidly  because 
this  market  prefers  Bayos  to  all  other  varieties.  California  Bayos 
meet  with  but  little  competition  either  from  Bayos  produced  in  other 
states  or  in  foreign  countries  or  from  other  varieties  of  beans. 


PRICES  AND   PURCHASING   POWER 

In  order  to  determine  whether  the  returns  from  the  sale  of  beans 
are  high  or  low  as  compared  with  the  things  the  bean  grower  must  buy, 
it  is  necessary  to  convert  money  prices  to  purchasing  power.  The  best 
index  available  at  present  for  doing  this  is  the  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics  index  of  wholesale  prices  given  in  the  last  column  of  table  3. 
The  figure  obtained  by  deflating  the  price  of  beans  by  the  correspond- 
ing index  number  indicates  the  value  of  beans  in  exchange  for  all 
commodities  at  wholesale  prices  compared  with  the  pre-war  exchange 
values. 

The  annual  average  purchasing  power  of  the  ten  varieties  of  beans 
grown  in  California  from  1909  to  1926  is  shown  in  figures  9  and  10. 
Although  these  curves  exhibit  some  similarities,  the  differences  are 
even  more  striking.  The  most  noticeable  similarities  are  between  Limas 
and  Baby  Limas  which  are  directly  competitive  in  the  consuming 
markets,  as  are  also  Small  Whites  and  Large  Whites. 

The  purchasing  power  of  Small  Whites  and  Large  Whites  experi- 
enced the  largest  increase  as  a  result  of  the  war.  These  two  varieties 
were  in  great  demand  by  the  army  and  navy. 

The  demand  for  the  other  California  varieties  was  much  less 
affected  by  the  war.  The  fairly  high  purchasing  power  of  Limas  and 
Pinks,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  production  of  them  was  large, 


Annual  Average  Purchasing  Power  of  Limas,  Baby  Limas,  Red  Kidneys, 
Cranberries,  and  Bayos,  F.O.B.  California,  1909-1926 


The  purchasing  power  is  measured  in  terms  of  the  average  purchasing  power 
of  the  dollar  in  1910-1914. 


DOLLARS 


CROP      YEAR 

Fig.  9. — The  purchasing  power  of  each  variety  fluctuated  widely  from  year 
to  year  and  to  a  considerable  extent  independently  of  the  fluctuations  in  the 
purchasing  power  of  other  varieties. 

Data  from  table  8. 


Annual  Average  Purchasing  Power  of  Small  Whites,  Large  Whites, 

Blackeyes,  Pinks,  and  California  Eeds,  F.O.B.  California, 

1909-1926 

The  purchasing  power  is  measured  in  terms  of  the  average  purchasing  power 
of  the  dollar  in   1910-1914. 
DOLLARS. 
PER  BAG 
7.00 


6.00 
5.00 
4.00 
3.00 


1  [  I 

1 

SMALL 

WHITE 

7.00 
6.00 

5.00 

LARGE 

WH 

TE 

y 

k. 

4.00 
3.00 

\ 

/ 

\ 

\( 

7.00 
600 

I 

\ 

I 

\ 

5.00 

B 

LACK 

EYE 

A 

\ 

4.00 
3-00 

■ . 

/ 

-\ 

\ 

z. 

N 

6.00 

5.00 

P 

NK 

7 

V 

400 

^S 

f 

A 

^ 

3.00 

—V 

->-*.■*»                  ^ 

1          1          1          1 
CALIFORNIA     RED 

5.00 
4.00 

/ 

V 

/ 

\ 

/ 

f 

\ 

■ 

3.00 

n 

,     -r   .  i — r=H — : — , — 7 — r^^, — ,      |      T  -  j  -  Y — dr^=) 

o>       o 
§       55 


8     a     Rj     8     a     a     8 


0>  o> 


CROP      YEAR 

Fig.  10. — An  important  cause  of  the  wide  fluctuations  in  purchasing 

power  from  year  to  year  is  changes  in  production. 

Data  from  table  3. 


30 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  3 

Average  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Beans  by  Varieties, 
F.O.B.  California,  1909-1926 

(Dollars  per  100-pound  bags;  1910-1914  base) 


Crop 

year 

Sept. 

to  Aug. 

Lima 

Baby 
Lima 

Pink 

Small 
White 

Large 
White 

Black- 
eye 

Bayo 

Cran- 
berry 

Cali- 
fornia 
Red 

Red 
Kidney 

•  All- 
com- 
modity 
index 

1909 

3.85 

4.50 

4.30 

3.45 

4.45 

5.20 

4.30 

6.05 

4.85 

104 

1910 

5.75 
5.50 
5.20 
5.75 
5.10 
4.20 
6.35 
6.58 
4.65 

5.35 
3.30 
3.60 
3.80 
3.95 
4.30 
5.20 
4.20 
3.05 

3.75 
4.25 
4.85 
5.30 
4.85 
5.80 
7.25 
6.35 
3.90 

3.70 
4.15 
4.35 
3.95 
4.70 
5.60 
7.05 
6.25 
3.65 

6.15 
3.90 
3.25 
5.45 
5.20 
3.20 
4.10 
4.25 
2.35 

4.95 
3.60 
3.40 
5.50 
4.90 
4.70 
4.95 
4.55 
3.30 

4.15 
4.25 
4.65 
4.95 
4.65 
4.55 
5.40 
6.10 
3.50 

5.40 
4.35 
4.00 
5.15 
5.35 
4.70 
5.15 
4.55 
2.85 

5.85 
4.90 
3.95 
4.70 
5.20 
5.65 
6.60 
6.45 
5.70 

95 

1911 

98 

1912 

102 

1913 

101 

1914 

101 

1915 

117 

1916 

165 

1917 

192 

1918 

4.00 

206 

1919 

5.00 

4.85 

2.75 

2.65 

2.70 

3.05 

4.15 

2.95 

3.35 

5.40 

235 

1920 

3.55 

3.25 

3.50 

2.35 

2.45 

3.75 

5.50 

3.75 

4.20 

5.60 

171 

1921 

5.15 

5.10 

3.60 

3.90 

4.05 

3.10 

3.70 

4.85 

3.15 

5.00 

147 

1922 

5.00 

6.30 

3.20 

4.05 

4.10 

3.05 

4.25 

4.50 

3.20 

4.60 

157 

1923 

6.90 

6.90 

3.20 

4.10 

3.50 

4.45 

4.10 

3.70 

3.75 

4.90 

152 

1924 

9.50 

8.75 

5.15 

5.05 

4.15 

6.60 

5.15 

5.05 

5.30 

6.95 

146 

1925 

6.30 

6.10 

3.55 

3.85 

3.35 

3.65 

7.05 

4.80 

3.30 

6.35 

157 

1926 

4.10 

3.40 

3.30 

4.20 

2.90 

2.65 

4.60 

4.35 

3.35 

5.85 

150 

Sources  of  data:  Prices  given  in  table  13  deflated  by  the  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics  all-commodity  index  converted  to  1910-1914  base.  This  index,  which  is 
given  in  the  last  column  in  table  3,  is  compiled  from  the  monthly  index  numbers 
of  all  commodities  published  in  U.  S.  Bur.  of  Agr.  Econ.  Index  Numbers  of 
Farm  Prices  (mimeo.),  pp.  57-63;  June,  1927;  and  in  The  Agricultural  Situation 
11(9)  :8.    1927. 


indicates  that  they  were  substituted  for  whites  to  some  extent.  The 
purchasing  power  of  Cranberries  was  high,  primarily  because  the 
imports  of  a  similar  variety  of  beans  from  Austria,  which  competed 
directly  with  the  Cranberry  in  the  eastern  mining  districts,  was  cut 
off.18  The  relatively  high  purchasing  power  of  Red  Kidneys  was 
largely  due  to  the  crop  shortage  in  Michigan,  the  principal  state  in 
the  production  of  Red  Kidneys  (see  fig.  3).  The  purchasing  power  of 
the  other  three  varieties — Bayos,  California  Reds,  and  Blackeyes — was 
not  higher  during  the  war,  and  in  the  case  of  Blackeyes  the  purchas- 
ing power  was  even  lower.  Every  variety  experienced  a  decline  in 
purchasing  power  after  the  war,  although  not  to  the  same  degree.  In 
general  the  varieties  that  experienced  the  greatest  rise  in  purchasing 
power  during  the  war  also  experienced  the  greatest  decline  after  the 
war.    Red  Kidneys,  the  production  of  which  had  not  been  expanded 


is  United  States  Tariff  Commission.     Survey  of  the  American  bean  industry. 
p.  18.     1920. 


B^L.  444]  BEANS  31 

during  the  war  and  which  enter  into  a  special  class  of  trade,  were  only 
slightly  affected  by  the  general  decline  in  the  purchasing  power  of  the 
other  varieties.  On  the  other  hand,  Small  Whites  and  Large  Whites 
experienced  a  continuous  and  drastic  drop  in  purchasing  power  which 
did  not  stop  until  1922.  Three  factors  contributed  to  this  great 
decline:  (1)  overexpansion  during  the  war,  (2)  greatly  increased 
imports,  principally  from  the  Orient,  and  (3)  decline  in  domestic 
demand. 

Factors  Affecting  Changes  in  Purchasing  Power. — One  of  the  most 
significant  points  illustrated  in  figures  9  and  10  is  the  wide  differences 
in  the  movements  of  the  purchasing  power  of  most  of  the  varieties. 
There  is  very  little  similarity  between  the  changes  from  year  to  year 
in  the  purchasing  power  of  Limas,  Whites,  Pinks,  Blackeyes,  Cran- 
berries, California  Reds,  and  Bayos.  These  varieties  are  distinct  in 
appearance  and  flavor  and  are,  therefore,  practically  non-competitive 
in  the  consuming  markets.  The  changes  in  the  purchasing  power  of 
each  variety  are  determined  by  the  changes  in  the  demand  and  supply 
of  that  variety,  largely  irrespective  of  the  changes  in  the  demand  and 
supply  of  the  other  varieties. 

The  close  relationship  between  the  purchasing  power  and  pro- 
duction of  Blackeyes  is  shown  in  figure  11.  Throughout  the  entire 
18-year  period  from  1909  to  1926,  with  the  exception  of  two  years, 
the  purchasing  power  varied  inversely  with  the  production.  High 
production  was  accompanied  by  low  purchasing  power;  low  pro- 
duction, by  high  purchasing  power. 

This  relationship  is  not  perfect,  however,  showing  that  other  factors 
besides  production  affect  prices.  One  of  these  factors  is  carryover.19 
In  1922  the  production  of  Blackeyes  was  one-fourth  smaller  than  in 
1921,  but  despite  this  fact  the  purchasing  power  of  Blackeyes  stayed 
at  approximately  the  same  level.  The  chief  reason  why  purchasing 
power  did  not  increase  in  1922  was  that  there  was  a  very  large  carry- 
over from  the  previous  year.  On  the  other  hand,  in  1923  and  1924 
the  increase  in  purchasing  power  was  considerably  greater  than  the 
decrease  in  production.  The  carryover  into  1923  and  1924,  however, 
amounted  to  only  14,000  bags  and  4,400  bags  respectively,  as  com- 
pared with  37,000  bags  into  1922.  The  large  carryover  of  the  1925 
crop,  which  amounted  to  44,000  bags,  also  affected  materially  the 
prices  obtained  in  1926.  The  purchasing  power  in  1926  was  27  per 
cent  lower  than  in  1925,  although  production  increased  only  15 
per  cent. 


19  The  amount  of  each  variety  carried  over  in  California  for  the  years  1921- 
1926  is  given  in  table  13,  page  60. 


32 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


The  relationship  between  purchasing  power  and  production  and 
carryover,  which  has  just  been  discussed  in  the  case  of  Blackeyes,  holds 
generally  true  for  each  of  the  other  varieties.  For  those  varieties 
which  are  produced  mainly  in  California  and  for  which  fairly  good 
data  on  production  and  carryover  are  available,  it  was  found  that  on 
the  average  85  per  cent  of  the  variations  in  purchasing  power  between 


Production  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Blackeye  Beans,  California,  1910-1926 

8    |   S    §    S    §    ?   8    S    §    g  8    §    ?    g    8   8 

f<  CM        CM  '"♦'tfCMtO^CMrH-tfCOCMCM^I,* 


Production 

CM      o 


1000  bags 

Purchasing  Power  J5 
per  bag  «o 


O       O       O       lO        tO       to        100(010 
CM        CM        r-i        CM        tO        O         C*-       r-l        O        <? 


tO       tO        ID         tO         tO 


cj      to      to     to      to 


<0        tO        CM 


500 

AfiO 

y 

i 

s 

\ 

\ 

\ 
1 

i 
1 

\ 

/ 

m 
o 

i 
1 

k*, 

i 

i 

t 
# 

\ 

.** 

\ 

1 
\ 

t 
I 

1 

^ 

'*, 

i 

w      ^00 

1 

10 

8 

0 

100 
90 

/ 
/ 
1 

/ 
I 
f 

i 
% 
i 
i 

* 
\ 

i 

1 

ROD 

JCTI 

ON 

"S 

) 

\ 

t 

i 

>L 

03    K    CiTi 

\ 

i 

-»■ 

i 

RCH/ 

I  SIN 

/ 

\ 

u  6#0° 

e 

°*  4  00 

\ 

/ 

\ 

pm ■ 

"V 

r 

\ 

^  %  no 

^ 

s 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

">M 

/ 

\ 

\ 

2. no 

\ 

/ 

r-*         e-l 

o>       o> 


O       r-t 
CM       CM 


tO  T* 
CM  CM 
<J>        0> 


to  <£ 
CM  CM 
O        O) 


Fig.  11. — There  is  a  very  close  inverse  relation  between  the  purchasing 
power  and  production  of  Blackeye  beans.  High  production  is  accompanied  by 
low  purchasing  power;  low  production  by  high  purchasing  power. 


Data  from  tables  1  and  3. 


1921  and  1926  were  explained  by  these  two  factors;  that  production 
alone  explained  72  per  cent  and  carryover  alone,  13  per  cent.  It  was 
also  found  that  a  large  carryover  depressed  purchasing  power  more 
than  an  equivalent  amount  of  new  production.  In  the  case  of  Black- 
eyes,  for  example,  a  40,000  bag  carryover  had  as  much  influence  in 
depressing  purchasing  power  as  an  80,000  bag  increase  in  production. 
The  reason  for  the  greater  influence  of  carryover  seems  to  be  a  result 


BUL.  444]  BEANS  33 

of  the  psychological  attitude  of  the  trade.  When  the  previous  year's 
crop  has  been  sold  factors  in  the  trade  are  generally  optimistic  as  to 
the  future.  Buying  and  selling  usually  proceed  briskly,  and  conse- 
quently the  beans  move  into  consumption  fairly  rapidly.  But  if  a 
relatively  large  part  of  the  previous  year's  crop  is  yet  unsold  when 
the  new  crop  begins  to  come  in,  the  trade  buys  more  slowly,  and  the 
consequent  slackening  of  demand  tends  to  reduce  prices. 

A  comparison  of  the  curves  on  production  in  figures  6  and  7  with 
the  corresponding  curves  on  purchasing  power  in  figures  9  and  10 
shows  a  much  closer  relationship  for  some  varieties  than  for  others. 
Changes  in  the  California  production  of  those  varieties  that  are  pro- 
duced largely  in  other  states  have  but  little  effect  upon  the  changes 
in  purchasing  power.  In  the  case  of  Small  Whites,  for  example,  there 
is  no  consistent  relationship  between  California  production  and  pur- 
chasing power,  because  we  produce  only  5  per  cent  of  the  total  United 
States  production  of  Small  Whites  and  are,  therefore,  a  relatively 
unimportant  factor.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  very  close  inverse 
relationship  between  the  total  United  States  production  and  the 
purchasing  power  of  our  Small  Whites.  This  illustration  serves  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  in  the  case  of  a  commodity  which  is  widely 
distributed,  as  beans  are,  it  is  the  total  United  States  production  and 
to  some  extent  the  total  world  production  of  the  variety  in  question 
and  not  the  production  in  a  particular  state  that  exerts  the  pre- 
dominate influence  upon  prices. 

The  effect  of  increased  production,  resulting  from  the  extension 
of  bean  production  to  other  states,  upon  purchasing  power  is  well 
shown  in  the  case  of  California  Reds  in  1926.  Prior  to  1926  the  pro- 
duction of  California  Reds  was  confined  to  California.  Consequently 
the  purchasing  power  of  California  Reds  varied  inversely  with  the 
production  in  this  state.  With  Idaho  producing  California  Reds  in 
1926,  the  situation  was  changed.  California  production  that  year  was 
28  per  cent  smaller  than  in  1925  but  the  purchasing  power  increased 
only  slightly,  because  Idaho  produced  nearly  enough  to  offset  the 
decline  in  California  production.  From  now  on  it  is  evident  that  the 
producers  of  California  Reds  in  this  state  must  give  attention  to  the 
production  of  this  variety  in  Idaho. 

Another  important  factor  which  prevents  purchasing  power  from 
varying  inversely  with  production  is  changes  in  demand,  the  effect  of 
which  is  particularly  well  shown  in  the  case  of  Small  and  Large 
Whites  and  Pinks  during  and  immediately  after  the  war.  During  the 
war  the  demand  for  these  varieties  increased  so  rapidly  that  the  very 
large  crops  in  1916  and  1917  sold  for  a  great  deal  more  per  bag  than 


34 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


the  much  smaller  crops  in  1913  and  1914.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
very  great  decrease  in  the  demand  for  these  varieties  after  the  war 
resulted  in  a  very  material  decline  in  purchasing  power  per  bag, 
despite  the  fact  that  the  production  of  these  varieties  was  much 
smaller. 


Representative  Prices  of  Important  Varieties  of  California  Beans 
During  the  Period  1921-1926 


Variety 
Lima 


Baby  Lima 

Red  Kidney 

Cranberry 

Bayo 

Small  TOiite 

Large  White 

Pink 

California  Red  5.15 
Blackeye      5,15 


Price 
$8.40 

8.15 

8.15 

6.85 

6.85 

6.10 

5.25 

5.15 


Dollars  per  bag 
2  3  4  5 


Fig.  12. — The  differences  in  the  lengths  of  the  bars  show  the  normal  price 
differentials  between  the  various  varieties  of  beans  since  1920. 

Data  compiled  from  table  14.20 

Recent  Trends  in  Purchasing  Power. — An  examination  of  figures 
9  and  10  shows  that  there  has  been  no  general  upward  or  downward 
trend  in  the  purchasing  power  of  any  of  the  varieties  throughout  the 

ffl  Kepresentative  prices  were  obtained  as  follows :  Average  prices  for  Limas, 
Ked  Kidneys,  Small  Whites,  Blackeyes,  Pinks,  and  California  Eeds  are  for  the 
five  years  of  1921,  1922,  1923,  1925,  and  1926.  Prices  for  the  1924  crop  were 
omitted  from  the  averages  of  these  varieties  because  they  were  abnormally 
high  on  account  of  the  short  crop  which  was  caused  by  the  exceptionally  dry 
year.  The  1924  prices  of  Bayos  and  Cranberries,  however,  were  nearly  normal 
as  they  are  practically  all  produced  on  irrigated  land.  Consequently  the  1924 
price  was  included  in  the  average  of  these  two  varieties.  The  1925  price  on 
Bayos  was  omitted  from  the  average  because  it  was  decidedly  out  of  line.  The 
prices  of  all  varieties  except  Bayos  were  substantially  lower  in  1925  than  in 
1924,  but  the  price  of  Bayos  was  $3.45  higher  in  1925  than  in  1924.  Baby 
Lima  prices  have  averaged  25  cents  under  the  price  of  Limas.  Large  White 
prices  have  averaged  85  cents  under  Small  White  prices  during  the  three  years 
of  1923,  1925,  and  1926.  Prior  to  1922  the  prices  of  Large  Whites  and  Small 
Whites  averaged  the  same,  but  since  1922  a  permanent  differential  has  existed 
between  these  two  varieties.  ... 


Bul.  444]  BEANS  35 

period  since  the  recovery  following  the  war.  Instead,  the  purchasing 
power  of  the  different  varieties  has  tended  to  fluctuate  about  a  given 
level.  The  fluctuations  were  due  to  the  factors  discussed  on  pages  31-34. 
Growers  have  been  concerned  about  the  rapid  and  continuous  fall  in 
the  prices  of  nearly  every  variety  during  the  past  two  years.  In  some 
cases  this  has  lead  to  undue  pessimism  as  to  the  future,  just  as  the 
high  prices  in  1924  lead  to  undue  optimism.  Instead  of  judging  the 
future  on  the  basis  of  the  prices  which  prevailed  during  the  previous 
year,  growers  should  consider  the  representative  prices  which  have 
prevailed  over  a  period  of  years,  together  with  any  underlying  factors 
which  may  cause  them  to  change. 

Representative  Prices  During  Recent  Years. — Figure  12  shows 
these  representative  prices  for  various  varieties  of  California  beans. 
These  varieties  fall  into  three  well  defined  price  groups:  the  high- 
priced  varieties  are  Limas,  Baby  Limas,  and  Red  Kidneys;  the 
medium-priced  varieties  are  Cranberries  and  Bayos;  and  the  low- 
priced  varieties  are  Large  Whites,  Pinks,  California  Reds,  and  Black- 
eyes.  Small  Whites  fall  between  the  medium-priced  and  the  low- 
priced  groups. 

What  are  the  causes  of  the  price  differentials  between  these  groups  ? 
Why  have  the  representative  prices  of  certain  varieties  tended  to 
to  remain  the  same  ?  What  are  the  probabilities  that  the  varieties  will 
continue  to  remain  in  the  same  relative  position  which  they  now 
occupy  ? 

In  general  the  relationship  between  the  representative  prices  of 
these  varieties  has  been  due  to  two  factors:  competition  in  the  con- 
suming markets  and  competition  for  the  use  of  land. 

A  rough  idea  of  the  extent  of  the  competition  between  the  several 
varieties  for  the  use  of  land  can  be  obtained  from  figure  13,  which 
shows  the  main  producing  districts  of  the  varieties  grown  in  Cali- 
fornia. Each  variety  has  its  own  particular  producing  section  in 
which  it  can  be  produced  better  than  the  other  variety.  But  each 
variety  also  competes  to  some  extent  for  the  use  of  land  with  one  or 
more  of  the  other  varieties.  A  considerable  proportion  of  the  bean 
land  in  the  state  is  adapted  to  the  production  of  more  than  one 
variety.21  The  variety  which  will  be  grown  is  largely  determined  by 
the  anticipated  net  returns  per  acre.  On  this  land,  equality  in  the 
net  return  per  acre  is  maintained  between  the  different  varieties  that 
can  be  grown  on  it,  by  the  constant  tendency  of  growers  to  shift  from 


21Por  a  detailed  discussion  of  the  climatic  and  soil  requirements  of  the 
varieties  of  beans  grown  in  California  see  Hendry,  G.  W.  Bean  culture  in 
California.    California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  294:9-39;  rev.  ed.  1921  (out  of  print). 


Main  Bean-producing  Sections  in  California 


LIMA 

Fig.  13. — Although  each  variety  has  its  own  particular  producing  section  in 
which  it  can  be  produced  better  than  the  other  varieties,  a  considerable  proportion 
of  the  bean  land  in  the  state  is  adapted  to  the  production  of  more  than  one  variety. 


Bul.  444]  BEANS  37 

the  varieties  which  have  given  low  returns  to  the  varieties  which  have 
given  high  returns.  Since  prices  and  yields  per  acre  are  the  most 
important  factors  determining  net  returns,  we  find  that  in  general 
the  varieties  which  have  averaged  the  same  in  prices  have  approxi- 
mately the  same  yields  per  acre ;  and  the  differences  in  average  prices 
are  caused  largely  by  differences  in  yields  per  acre. 

In  the  low-priced  group  the  prices  of  Blackeyes,  California  Reds, 
Pinks,  and  Large  Whites  have  averaged  approximately  the  same 
during  recent  years  (fig.  12).  During  any  given  year  the  prices  of 
the  varieties  may  be  widely  different  because  there  is  but  little  com- 
petition between  them  in  the  consuming  markets.  However,  they  do 
compete  more  or  less  for  the  use  of  land,  and  it  is  this  force  which 
causes  the  prices  of  them  to  constantly  approach  the  same  level.  With 
some  varieties  the  competition  for  the  use  of  land  is  much  closer  than 
with  others.  In  certain  sections  of  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin 
valleys,  Blackeyes  and  California  Reds  can  be  grown  almost  equally 
well ;  in  other  sections  California  Reds  and  Pinks  yield  approximately 
the  same.  There  is  very  little  direct  competition  between  Blackeyes 
and  Pinks  for  the  use  of  land,  but  the  indirect  competition  is  consider- 
able because  each  competes  directly  with  California  Reds. 

Large  Whites  are  grown  in  the  same  localities  that  produce  Pinks 
and  California  Reds.  On  most  of  this  land,  however,  the  Large  White 
is  less  productive  than  the  Pink  or  California  Red.  With  the  Large 
White  bringing  no  higher  prices  during  the  past  few  years  than  the 
Pink  or  California  Red,  it  has  not  been  able  to  compete  with  these 
varieties.  Consequently  it  has  been  going  out  of  production  very 
rapidly. 

The  prices  of  Small  Whites  have  averaged  approximately  $1.00  a 
bag  more  than  the  prices  of  Large  Whites,  Pinks,  California  Reds,  and 
Blackeyes.  Small  Whites  still  compete  to  some  extent  with  Large 
Whites  in  the  consuming  market,  but  this  competition  is  not  nearly 
so  close  as  it  was  before  1922.  During  the  past  four  years  a  differential 
in  favor  of  Small  Whites  has  been  established  in  the  consuming 
markets.  In  certain  sections  of  the  central  coast  district,  Small  Whites 
and  Pinks  compete  for  the  use  of  land.  With  the  price  differential 
of  approximately  $1.00  a  bag  in  favor  of  Small  Whites,  why  is  it  that 
Small  Whites  have  not  entirely  replaced  Pinks  in  this  area?  The 
reason  they  have  not  is  that  on  much  of  the  land  where  these  two 
varieties  can  be  grown,  Pinks  produce  a  larger  yield;  and  this 
increased  yield  of  Pinks  just  about  offsets  the  higher  price  of  Small 
Whites,  so  that  the  net  return  per  acre  tends  to  be  the  same. 


38  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Bayos  and  Cranberries  occupy  the  medium-priced  group,  which 
has  a  differential  in  its  favor  of  $1.70  a  bag  over  the  low-priced  group. 
The  area  along  the  Sacramento  River  from  Antioch  to  Sacramento 
is  common  to  the  production  of  both  varieties.  In  this  district  these 
two  varieties  produce  approximately  the  same  yield,  and  consequently 
their  prices  tend  to  approach  the  same  level.  Pinks  are  also  widely 
grown  in  this  area,  even  though  their  price  has  averaged  considerably 
lower.  Bayos  and  Cranberries,  however,  have  not  replaced  Pinks, 
because  the  higher  yields  on  Pinks  have  offset  the  higher  prices  of 
Bayos  and  Cranberries,  resulting  in  equality  in  the  net  return  per 
acre. 

The  center  of  Red  Kidney  production  in  California  is  along  the 
Feather  River  north  of  Marysville.  This  variety  has  a  relatively 
short  growing  period  and  is,  therefore,  adapted  to  the  overflow  lands 
which  must  be  planted  later  in  the  summer.  Red  Kidneys,  however, 
are  sometimes  grown  on  land  which  is  also  adapted  to  the  production 
of  Cranberries,  Bayos,  and  Pinks.  Although  the  price  of  Red  Kidneys 
has  averaged  $3.00  a  bag  more  than  Pinks  and  $1.30  a  bag  more  than 
Cranberries  and  Bayos,  it  has  not  replaced  these  varieties,  because  the 
average  yield  of  Red  Kidneys  on  this  land  is  very  much  lower  than 
the  average  yield  of  Pinks  and  considerably  lower  than  the  average 
yield  of  Cranberries  and  Bayos. 

Limas  and  Baby  Limas  have  also  occupied  the  high-priced  group 
with  Red  Kidneys.  There  has  been  little  relation  between  Red 
Kidneys  and  the  lima  varieties,  however,  either  in  the  consuming 
markets  or  in  the  producing  section.  The  price  of  Red  Kidneys  is 
largely  determined  by  the  production  in  Michigan  and  New  York. 
California  production  of  Red  Kidneys,  being  but  a  small  percentage 
of  the  total  United  States  production,  has  little  effect  upon  the  price. 

The  position  which  Limas  and  Baby  Limas  have  occupied  in  the 
high-priced  group  has  been  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  the  land 
adapted  to  their  production  was  believed  to  be  limited.  In  the  case 
of  Limas  this  is  still  true.  Lima  production  is  restricted  to  a  narrow 
area  along  the  coast  of  southern  California.  The  area  adapted  to 
the  production  of  Baby  Limas,  however,  is  not  as  limited  as  it  was 
formerly  believed.  Until  three  years  ago  the  main  .center  of  Baby 
Lima  production  was  in  the  San  Fernando  Valley.  Since  then  pro- 
duction has  been  extended  to  many  of  the  important  bean-producing 
districts  in  the  state.  On  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  land  in 
these  districts  it  was  found  that  the  yields  of  Baby  Limas  were 
sufficiently  large  so  that  with  the  relatively  high  prices  which  had 
prevailed  it  was  more  profitable  to  grow  them  than  the  varieties  which 


Bul.  444]  BEANS  39 

they  had  been  growing.  Consequently  the  acreage  of  Baby  Limas, 
which  had  remained  relatively  stable  at  about  20,000  acres  prior  to 
1925,  was  increased  to  25,000  in  1925  and  to  45,000  acres  in  1926. 

The  large  increase  in  production  which  resulted  from  this  rapid 
expansion  caused  a  substantial  reduction  in  prices.  In  1926  the  price 
of  Baby  Limas  was  only  slightly  higher  than  the  prices  obtained  for 
the  varieties  with  which  they  compete  for  the  use  of  land.  With  the 
relatively  low  prices  of  Baby  Limas  it  was  evidently  not  profitable  to 
produce  them  on  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  land  upon  which 
they  had  been  grown  in  1926.  Consequently  the  acreage  planted  to 
Baby  Limas  in  1927  was  25  per  cent  smaller. 

Probable  Future  Price  Differentials. — The  available  evidence  indi- 
cates that  on  the  average  the  future  price  differentials  between  Pinks, 
California  Reds,  Blackeyes,  Large  Whites,  Small  Whites,  Cranberries, 
Bayos,  and  Red  Kidneys  will  not  depart  very  materially  from  those 
given  in  figure  12.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  likely  that  the  average 
prices  of  Baby  Limas  and  Limas  in  the  future  will  be  relatively  lower 
than  they  have  during  the  past  six  years. 

The  competition  for  the  use  of  land  which  has  been  manifested, 
particularly  since  1924,  between  Baby  Limas  and  Small  Whites,  Pinks, 
California  Reds,  and  Blackeyes  will  tend  to  keep  the  future  average 
price  of  Baby  Limas  closer  to  that  of  these  other  varieties  than  it  has 
been  during  the  past  six  years.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  not  likely  that 
the  future  price  of  Baby  Limas  will  average  as  low  as  that  of  the  low- 
priced  varieties.  In  general  it  may  be  expected  that  the  average  price 
of  Baby  Limas  will  be  maintained  at  a  level  which  will  offset  the 
differences  in  yield  between  them  and  the  varieties  with  which  they 
compete  for  the  use  of  land. 

It  is  not  likely  that  the  prices  of  Limas  will  vary  more  from  the 
prices  of  Baby  Limas  in  the  future  than  they  have  in  the  past.  Unless 
a  permanent  differential  between  Limas  and  Baby  Limas  is  estab- 
lished in  the  consuming  markets,  therefore  the  future  prices  of  these 
varieties  will  fluctuate  close  together. 

Briefly  the  situation  is  this:  Baby  Limas  compete  with  the  low- 
priced  varieties  for  the  use  of  land;  and  Baby  Limas  compete  with 
Limas  in  the  consuming  markets.  The  competition  for  the  use  of 
land  will  tend  to  keep  the  future  prices  of  Baby  Limas  close  to  the 
prices  of  the  low-priced  varieties,  and  the  competition  in  the  con- 
suming markets  will  tend  to  keep  the  future  prices  of  Limas  close  to 
the  prices  of  Baby  Limas. 

Seasonal  Variation  in  Prices. — It  is  a  familiar  fact  that  the  prices 
of  beans  fluctuate  widely  during  the  year  and  that  the  high  prices 


40  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

are  frequently  twice  as  much  as  the  low  prices.  Growers  are  con- 
stantly confronted  with  the  question,  "When  is  the  best  time  of  the 
year  to  sell  beans  ? ' '  Are  the  prices  of  Pinks,  for  example,  normally 
higher  or  lower  in  October  or  March  than  in  the  other  months  of  the 
year  ?  In  general,  taking  one  year  with  another  they  are  not.  There 
is  no  definite  seasonal  variation  in  the  prices  of  any  of  the  varieties 
of  beans  that  tend  to  be  repeated  year  after  year.  There  seems  to  be 
no  inherent  forces  in  the  seasons  of  the  year  that  tend  to  produce 
periodic  changes  of  the  seasonal  type  in  the  prices  of  beans.  There  is, 
however,  a  small  gradual  advance  in  the  price  of  each  variety  during 
the  season.  But  on  the  average  this  advance  is  not  more  than  sufficient 
to  pay  the  costs  connected  with  holding  the  product.  In  addition  to 
the  costs  of  storage,  insurance,  and  interest,  the  advance  in  price  must 
generally  be  sufficient  to  cover  the  costs  of  bearing  the  risks  incident 
to  unforeseen  changes  in  price  such  as  might  arise  from  unexpected 
imports  of  competing  varieties  or  sudden  changes  in  demand. 

Although  in  the  past  the  price  of  each  variety  of  beans  have 
averaged  nearly  as  high  the  first  of  the  season  as  later,  it  should  not 
be  assumed  that  this  condition  would  continue  if  all  of  the  growers 
sold  their  crop  immediately  after  harvesting.  Under  the  present 
system  of  distribution,  in  which  both  the  wholesale  and  retail  trade 
buy  in  small  lots,  it  is  necessary  that  an  orderly  marketing  policy  be 
followed  by  the  growers.  If  supplies  are  forced  on  the  market  faster 
than  they  are  wanted  by  the  distributing  trade,  unduly  low  prices 
are  likely  to  result. 

With  certain  varieties  there  has  been  a  fairly  close  relation 
between  the  size  of  the  crop  and  the  price  movement  during  the 
season.22  Backeyes  and  California  Reds  have  exhibited  this  relation 
most  strikingly.  On  the  average,  when  the  production  of  these 
varieties  has  been  small,  prices  have  advanced  during  the  season,  and 
conversely,  when  the  production  has  been  large,  prices  have  declined 
during  the  season.  This  is  largely  because  the  trade  generally  over- 
estimates a  small  crop  and  under-estimates  a  large  crop.  It  should 
be  emphasized  that  the  force  causing  prices  to  behave  in  this  way  is 
not  necessarily  a  permanent  one.  As  the  methods  of  estimating  the 
production  of  the  different  varieties  are  improved  the  relationship 
between  the  size  of  the  crop  and  the  price  movement  during  the 

22  An  analysis  of  this  relation  was  made  for  each  of  the  following  varieties: 
Limas,  Blackeyes,  California  Reds,  Bayos,  and  Cranberries.  Small  Whites, 
Large  Whites,  and  Red  Kidneys  were  not  included  because  of  the  relatively 
small  amount  produced  in  California  and  because  data  on  the  United  States 
production  were  available  only  since  1921,  a  period  too  short  for  analysis. 
Pinks  were  also  excluded  because  of  the  close  competition  between  them  and 
Pintos. 


Bul.  444]  BEANS  41 

season  will  become  less  pronounced.  The  price  movements  of  Limas 
and  Cranberries,  for  example,  are  but  slightly  affected  by  the  size  of 
the  crop.  The  chief  reason  seems  to  be  that  the  area  producing  these 
varieties  is  relatively  compact,  thus  making  it  easier  to  ascertain  the 
actual  production.  This  is  particularly  true  of  Cranberries,  the  pro- 
duction of  which  is  practically  confined  to  a  small  area  in  the  Delta 
district.  The  greater  difficulty  in  the  estimation  of  Lima  production, 
which  is  caused  by  the  larger  area  and  more  scattered  acreage,  is 
largely  offset  by  the  fact  that  one  organization,  the  California  Lima 
Bean  Growers  Association,  is  the  dominant  factor  in  the  Lima  deal, 
and  this  organization  pays  particular  attention  to  the  collection  of 
reliable  information  on  production. 

The  foregoing  discussion  helps  to  bring  out  the  fact  that  more 
careful  estimates  of  production  are  needed,  and  that  they  are  needed 
immediately  after  the  crop  is  harvested.  The  need  for  early  and  exact 
information  on  the  size  of  the  crop  is  also  shown  by  the  fact  that  the 
most  violent  fluctuations  in  prices  generally  occur  during  the  first 
quarter  of  the  crop  year.  Uncertainty  regarding  the  volume  of  each 
variety  produced  is  the  main  cause  for  the  wider  fluctuations.  As  the 
season  advances  all  of  the  factors  in  the  trade  obtain  a  more  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  actual  production. 


CONSUMPTION 

The  average  consumption  of  beans  in  the  United  States  during  the 
past  three  years  amounted  to  approximately  ten  million  bags  annually, 
which  is  equivalent  to  8.7  pounds  for  every  person  in  the  country. 
Since  1921  the  per-capita  consumption  of  beans  has  been  increasing 
rapidly  (fig.  14).  It  does  not  seem  likely,  however,  that  this  upward 
trend  will  continue  to  rise  as  rapidly  during  the  next  few  years  as  it 
has  in  the  past  four  years  because  the  point  from  which  it  started  was 
abnormally  low.  The  low  per-capita  consumption  in  1920  and  1921 
was  largely  a  result  of  the  temporary  refusal  of  many  people,  par- 
ticularly ex-service  men,  to  eat  beans.  Beans  had  formed  so  large  a 
part  of  their  diet  during  the  war  that  they  had  tired  of  them,  and  it 
was  several  years  before  they  again  ate  as  many  beans  as  they  had 
eaten  before  the  war. 

In  addition  to  the  return  to  normal  consumption,  a  part  of  the 
recent  increase  was  a  result  of  the  increased  use  of  canned  beans.  To 
a  considerable  extent,  of  course,  this  meant  merely  the  replacement 
of  dry  beans  by  canned  beans ;  but  it  also  seems  to  have  resulted  in 
the  purchase  of  more  beans,  since  the  present  per-capita  consumption 
is  approximately  one  pound  greater  per  year  than  before  the  war. 


42 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


The  increasing  consumption  of  canned  beans  may  be  expected  to 
continue,  because  the  trend  in  the  buying  habits  of  the  American 
housewife  is  toward  the  purchase  of  quickly  prepared  foods.  To 
what  extent  this  will  mean  an  increase  in  the  total  consumption  of 
beans  is  not  certain.  On  the  whole  it  does  not  seem  likely  that  the 
total  consumption  during  the  next  few  years  will  rise  much  above  the 
present  level  unless  prices  are  reduced. 

Estimated  Per-Capita  Consumption  of  Beans,  United  States,  1914-1925 


10 


$ 

•A 
I 

°    6 
& 

Pi 

w 

r 


Year  Beginning  July 

Fig.   14. — The  per-capita  consumption  of  beans  in  the  United  States  has 
increased  rapidly  since  1921,  and  is  now  larger  than  before  the  war. 

Data  obtained  by  adding  general  imports  and  subtracting  domestic  and  foreign 
exports  and  shipments  to  Porto  Rico  from  the  United  States  production.  The  result- 
ing figure  for  each  year  was  then  divided  by  the  population  of  the  United  States  for 
the  coresponding  year. 


UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  TRADE   IN   BEANS 

The  United  States  has  maintained  a  considerable  export  and 
import  trade  in  beans.  The  direction  and  volume  of  this  trade  has 
varied  widely  during  the  past  two  decades. 

Exports. — The  relative  changes  in  our  domestic  exports  of  beans 
during  the  past  seventeen  years  are  shown  in  figure  15.  Prior  to  the 
war  our  exports  were  fairly  stable,  averaging  around  205,000  bags 
annually.  Approximately  85  per  cent  of  our  exports  were  shipped 
to  North  American  markets,  mainly  to  Cuba,  Central  America,  and 
Canada.     Nearly  one-half  of  the  remainder  was  shipped  to  South 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


43 


America.  The  very  rapid  increase  in  our  exports  between  1914  and 
1916  was  chiefly  a  result  of  the  increased  European  demand  caused  by 
the  World  War.  During  the  fiscal  year  of  1916-17  almost  50  per  cent 
of  our  total  exports  were  sent  to  Europe  as  compared  with  4  per  cent 
before  the  war.  In  addition  our  exports  to  Cuba  and  Canada  increased 

Domestic  Exports  of  Beans,  United  States,  1909-1926 


O  </J  o  to 

O  00  CM  C«- 

Ofll  CV1  iH 
rHPQ 


Yl 

•H 

Oi 

Oi 

<o 

o> 

o 

CO 

t- 

o> 

<0 

CM 

<o 

to 

Oi 

CO 

o 

t* 

co 

CM 

m 

o> 

r-l 

to 

t- 

U> 

<* 

CO 

to 

<0 

CD 

in 

CM 

CM 

1-i 

t» 

o 

CM 

o> 

<* 

CM 
CM 

O 

CO 

<* 

^ 

to 

CM 

to 

2000 

1000 
900 

DC 

>ME« 

iTIC 

e; 

cpof 

tTS 

800 
700 

S  60° 

^  500 

S  300 

1 
200 

100 

j 

/ 

/ 

/ 

S. 

A 

•" 

\ 

\ 

/ 

> 

} 

o 

o 

ri 

CM 

o 

r\ 

rH 

•H 

o> 

Oi 

Oi 

0> 

lO      <o 

«H       r-l 

0>        Oi 


tO  «# 
CM  CM 
O         Oi 


Year  Beginning  July 


Calendar  Year 


Fig.  15. — The  United  States  is  rapidly  losing  the  foreign  market  which 
had  been  acquired  as  a  result  of  the  war. 


Data  from  table  4. 


substantially.  Cuban  imports  from  Europe,  which  had  been  cut  off 
by  the  war,  were  largely  replaced  by  increased  shipments  from  the 
United  States.  Increased  Canadian  demand  for  beans  was  a  direct 
result  of  the  war.  The  decline  in  our  exports  during  the  fiscal  year 
1917-18  was  caused  by  the  increased  demand  for  beans  in  this  country 
to  feed  our  own  military  forces. 


44 


UNIVEESITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 


ffl 

bJO 

o 

& 

H 

«H 

r/j 

O 

3 

03 

O 

d 

Q 

02 

02 

0 

E-i 

o 
,d 

3 

H 

H 

•^s 

W 

CO 

1 

oo 

CM 

m 

© 

CO 

'""' 

"5 

_ 

»    (O    N    *    OO    N 

N     H     T»     H 

OS 

CM 

ce 

O            CO    CM 

a> 

© 

CI 

cm 

CM 

*" ' 

-<* 

CO 

O    N    O    M    MO 

CM    OJ    *    CM 

CO 

52 

~r 

00              H     (N 

© 

OS 

CO 

CO 

CO 

"■"' 

CO 

o 

H    (S    91    (O    M    (N 

CM    t"-    CO    rH 

© 

CM 

C] 

CO                     CM             i-H 

CM 

m 

o> 

TH 

CO 

-^ 

M 

s 

CO 

>> 

CM 

CI 

OO    N    O    W     O)    115 

N    N    OS    N 

CM 

o3 

cm 

OS 

CO            h    IM 

t-~ 

00 

o> 

CO 

CO 

Tj< 

^2 

"* 

ION*    OO    N    h 

H    Ol    Ol    M 

© 

e3 
O 

cm 

CI 

-HH               CM     1-H     CM 

<=> 

-C* 

OS 

CO 

m 

CM 

00 

o 

CM 

© 

«* 

Ml*    ©NO    OO 

■*    CM    N    CM 

© 

o 

CM     1-H     1-H     CM     CM 

-# 

m 

CO 

»n 

■<*< 

CO 

r* 

© 

t^ 

n  o  e  h  »  io 

*0     ©     ">#     1H 

n 

o 

O    H    to    N    (N 

CO 

n 

© 

T* 

00 

CM 

rH 

'"H 

CM 

oo 

© 

■* 

H    w    OO    19    *    M 

NOOMrt 

00 

02 

»-H                 T*                 CM 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

© 

** 

1-1 

1-1 

t^. 

oo 

■*    Tt<    <M    —1    -H    CC 

T*    -rj<     CO     fH 

© 

O              CO     >-l     CO 

OO 

Oi 

« 

-* 

CO 

© 

1—1 

CO 

02 

ca 

o  in  w  w  a  n 

O     O)    N     H 

© 

t~-     — 1     CM     CO     t-I     r-H 

HO 

© 

CC 

CM                                CO 

CO 

CM 

•"• 

m 

oc 

in   oo  oo  *   co   n 

oo  m  (o   a 

© 

t~-       J-i       •&       TT       t>~       W* 

"*   "-1 

in 

03 

CC 

CO                                       1-H 

CO 

© 

•^ 

<# 

a 

m  *  oo  o  co  o 

t^     0O    00    CO 

© 

O     H     H     *     (N     r- 

CM     rH 

CM 

^ 

© 

O 

I-H 

-* 

t>- 

3 

G 

go~ 

2  ' 

CO 

N    T*    O     CM    CO     t> 

CO     CT>    00     CN 

m 

t-     1-H      >-H      ■*      CM 

o 

'S 

a 

'So 

CD 

>02 

CM 

«<~ 

CO 

c 

CM     »-H     CM     »-H     O0     0C 

to  in  n  o 

Oi 

CC 

CO     1-H     1-H     *      CM 

OO 

(-c 

© 

c3 

CD 

CM 

r^ 

iO    CO    00    OJ    o    o- 

n   o)  oi  k 

C 

Oi     rH               T*l     CO 

CO 

c 

CM 

*"* 

,_, 

e'- 

©   lO    !>•    00    ©    l> 

o   s  cq  c 

m 

er: 

l>-     1-H                 CO      CM 

© 

© 

CM 

T_l 

o 

C 

t>-    CM    -*    oo    ■*    w 

©     -TJH     I>-     CN 

CO 

K 

CO    »-H             CO    CM 

N 

© 

r~t 

OS 

"" 

00    N    N    H    «    « 

t--   as  t~-  cv 

© 

o 

a 

O0     H     H     *     H 

CM 

© 

CM 

1-1 

:    a 

1 

:     CD 
1   3 

:     03 

c 
:    c 

;  « 

J 

:     <u 

t 

:    h4> 

!     S 

cj 
•          -2 

-i 

j 

!  < 

'£ 

X 

) 

» 

a 

< 

o 
1           E 

13  s 

.   +j    c3    n 

;   fl   2  ^ 

OJ     oi    + 

5    3 

« 

;   e 

s 

1 

:     oo^uoc 

O    3     to    c 

i 
1 
> 

!z 

II  a 

{= 

< 

c 

) 

s 

o 

►» 

X2 

=4-1 

73 
+3 

M 

O 

s 

pd 

p: 

CD 

+s 

o 

Ol 

O) 

03 

!> 

H 

bJO 

^ 

O 

«H 

o 

p) 

-*J 

Cm  03 

a» 

CD 

y 

O 

M  ^ 

O) 

rt 

oa 

CD 

o 

> 

■M 

•4-3 

CD 

r/; 

O 

rd 

^H 

03 

-4-> 

3 

'2 

o 

^•2 

c^    S3 

^    » 

H     CD 

O    +3 

15,5 

.SP» 

^CO 

5  CM 

ca  ci 

i—i 

© 

o     - 

fH       fH 

<D    CD 

..9  « 

Q    CD 

fifi 

bC    - 

.H     CD 

CD    O 

fH       fH 

O    CD 

Ph  S 

«H    S 

O    O 

<n^ 

CD    fl 

,o  bo 

S  'S 

C3    ^ 

C3  «4H 

P     O 

5  fr 

<1    03 

..  s 

rt  3 

fl 

r^CC 

C 

«M     {>> 

o 

O  -— I 

^3 

=4H 

O 

cp  a 

2  ° 

CD 
fH 

o 

-4J 

c«oq 

d 
fl 

P 

o 

CD 

BUL.  444]  BEANS  45 

A  number  of  factors  contributed  to  our  very  large  domestic  exports 
in  1919.  After  the  war  the  United  States  demand  for  beans  dropped 
very  materially,  with  a  resulting  decline  in  prices.  These  low  prices 
were  attractive  to  European  countries,  which  had  not  yet  returned 
to  their  normal  bean  production.  Consequently  they  purchased  large 
supplies  of  beans  from  this  country.  In  addition  the  very  large 
imports  of  beans  into  the  United  States,  which  were  an  important 
factor  in  causing  our  prices  to  decline,  tended  to  force  our  domestic 
beans  into  foreign  markets. 

Since  1919  our  domestic  exports  have  declined  rapidly.  Our 
European  markets  have  been  practically  eliminated,  and  our  North 
American  markets  are  declining.  In  1919,  European  countries  bought 
2,277,000  bags  of  our  beans;  the  following  year,  only  442,000  bags, 
and  since  then  our  exports  to  Europe  have  steadily  declined  until  at 
the  present  time  they  are  almost  negligible.  It  has  again  resumed 
the  place  it  occupied  prior  to  the  war  as  an  exporter  of  beans  to  the 
United  States  rather  than  as  an  importer  of  beans  from  this  country. 

A  comparison  of  our  average  pre-war  exports  with  our  exports  at 
the  present  time  shows  several  significant  changes.  Our  total  exports 
are  still  above  the  pre-war  average,  both  in  absolute  amount  and  relative 
to  our  total  production.  This  condition  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that 
our  exports  to  Cuba  are  very  much  heavier  than  before  the  war.  Before 
the  war  our  exports  to  Cuba  averaged  77,000  bags  annually,  which 
was  38  per  cent  of  our  total  exports.  In  1925  we  shipped  208,000 
bags  to  Cuba,  or  70  per  cent  of  our  total  exports.  Our  exports  to  the 
other  countries,  however,  are  very  much  lower  now  than  they  were 
before  the  war.  Canada  and  Central  America,  which  together  bought 
55,000  bags  annually,  or  nearly  33  per  cent  of  our  total  exports,  before 
the  war,  purchased  on  the  average  during  the  past  three  years  only 
32,000  bags  annually,  or  less  than  9  per  cent  of  our  total  exports. 
Likewise,  our  exports  to  South  America  have  declined.  They  were 
relatively  small  before  the  war,  amounting  to  only  13,000  bags  a  year, 
and  are  almost  negligible  now,  amounting  to  only  2,000  bags  a  year. 
During  the  past  few  years  we  have  imported  considerably  larger 
quantities  of  beans  from  South  American  countries  than  we  have 
exported  to  them. 

Since  Cuba  is  our  only  remaining  foreign  market  of  any  conse- 
quence at  the  present  time  it  is  desirable  to  inquire  further  into  what 
has  been  taking  place  there  during  recent  years.  Table  5  shows  the 
situation  in  detail.  The  significant  fact  brought  out  in  table  5  is  that 
our  exports  to  Cuba  have  been  declining  rapidly  and  continuously 
during  the  past  few  years.    The  Cubans  are  not  eating  fewer  beans — 


46 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


in  fact  they  are  eating  more — but  they  are  not  eating  as  many  of  ours 
because  they  cannot  buy  them  as  cheaply  as  those  from  other  countries. 
In  1921  Cuba  imported  546,000  bags  from  the  United  States  as  com- 
pared  with  208,000  bags  in  1925,  a  decrease  of  62  per  cent.  On  the 
other  hand,  Cuba's  total  imports  of  beans  increased  from  636,000  bags 
in  1921  to  798,000  bags  in  1925.  In  the  Cuban  market,  European 
countries  and  Mexico  are  gradually  retaking  the  place  they  occupied 
prior  to  the  war,  and  in  addition,  Japan  has  become  an  important 
factor. 

TABLE  5 
Cuban  Bean  Imports  by  Countries  op  Origin;  Average  1911-1912  and 

Annual  1921-1925 
(Thousands  of  bags,  i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Imported  from 

Average 
1911-1912 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

United  States 

71 
121 

546 

11 

5 

19 

55 

338 
41 
19 
30 

107 

361 
113 
30 
60 
85 

289 

74 

75 

104 

165 

208 

Mexico 

62 

Japan 

92 

European  countries 

138 

7 

298 

Other  countries 

138 

337 

636 

535 

649 

707 

798 

Sources  of  data:  Secretaria  de  Hacienda,  Commercio  Exterior  Republico  de 
Cuba,  1911-12  and  1921-25,  except  for  imports  from  the  United  States,  which 
are  from  table  4. 


Imports. — Between  1910  and  1914  imports  of  beans  into  the  United 
States  averaged  688,000  bags  a  year  (fig.  16).  A  large  proportion  of 
this  amount  was  imported  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  foreign 
population  who  preferred  different  kinds  of  beans  from  those  raised 
in  this  country.  During  this  period  67  per  cent  of  the  imports  came 
from  Europe,  mainly  Austria-Hungary,  France,  Italy,  and  Germany ; 
17  per  cent  from  Asia,  mainly  Japan;  and  15  per  cent  from  North 
America,  mainly  Mexico.  In  1915  and  1916  our  imports  were  materi- 
ally reduced  because  the  European  sources  of  supply  were  largely 
discontinued  on  account  of  the  war.  In  the  following  four  years  our 
imports  increased  enormously,  reaching  a  high  point  of  3,069,000  bags 
in  1919.  The  high  prices  of  beans  resulted  in  a  world-wide  stimu- 
lation of  production.  Our  imports  from  Asia  alone  increased  from 
288,000  bags  in  1915  to  2,208,000  bags  in  1919.  A  second  contribut- 
ing factor  was  that  a  large  part  of  the  shipments  of  the  exporting 
countries  were  cleared  through  American  ports  because  of  the  dis- 
location of  the  usual  routes  of  trade.  In  1919,  for  example,  almost 
one-half  of  our  total  imports  were  re-exported. 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


47 


The  abnormal  demand  during  the  war  absorbed  the  heavy  imports 
as  well  as  the  greatly  increased  crop  in  this  country.  But  with  the 
cessation  of  hostilities  and  the  consequent  decrease  in  demand,  the 
heavy  supplies  forced  prices  rapidly  downward.  In  1920  and  1921 
prices  were  so  low  that  this  country  was  not  a  desirable  market.    Our 


General  Imports  of  Beans,  United  States,  1909-1926 


Q  09    O       O 

O  a*    <D       <0 

i-tm 


3000 


tO       CD 

«+        Oi 
lO        tO 


CO 

co 

LD 

o> 

<o 

$ 

CM 

*t* 

CO 

CM 

to 

lO 

CO 

OJ 

<* 

to 

o 

CM 

iH 

t» 

M 

CM 

CO 

to 

«H 

<0       ,H 
CM        <0 


CO        <D 


2000 


1000 

900 

800 

700 

8>  600 

»  500 

«  400 

1 

S   300 


200 


100 


^-^\ 

GENERAL    IMPORTS      /                               \ 

-Mm—  V=a- 

-==^5-| Eq-3^ 

\F      H 

ir 

S      O      rH 

O       tH       iH 

©»     c»      o> 


O) 


o>      o>     o>     o 


CD         O 


to     *#      in     to 

CM        CM         CM       CM 
O        0»         0>        0> 


Year  Beginning  July 


Calendar  Tear 


Fig.  16. — General  imports  are  approaching  the  pre-war  level,  but  with  this 
significant  difference,  viz.,  that  the  Orient,  which  produces  varieties  of  beans 
similar  to  those  grown  in  California,  has  now  become  an  important  exporter 
of  beans  to  the  United  States. 

Data  from  table  6. 


imports  in  1921  were  the  lowest  in  the  entire  period  from  1910  to 
1926,  amounting  to  only  164,000  bags.  After  the  general  recovery  of 
prices  in  1922  imports  again  increased  but  not  nearly  to  the  point  they 
had  reached  in  1919.  In  1926  imports  amounted  to  654,000  bags, 
approximately  the  pre-war  level. 


48 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


OS 

T 

OS 

o    _ 

S     | 

2 

§  ° 
a  o 

H    O 


pq 

m 

sr 

43 

w 

<H 

s 

O 

oa 

CQ 

W 

on 

H 

3 

«"4 

o 

H 

44 

02 

H 

a) 
>» 

s 

a 

O 

co 
cm 

OS 

co 

CO 
cc 

K 

CN 

CM 

•*    CM    O 
CM    CM    CC 

CM 
CM 

CM 

00 

CO 

CO 
CO 

CO 
CM 

b- 

CO 

-* 

CN 

CM 

CM 

CM 

3 

to 

eM 

OS 

O 

5! 

OS    CM    CO    no    CO    iO 
"3    O    t*    CO    CO    CO 

OO 

eM 

OS    OO 
"3    CM 
CM 

CO 

co 

CO    CM    i-l 

CO 

00     OS 
CM    i-l 

s 

sw 

oo 

CM 

OS 

s 

CO    O    "3     CO 
CO    «o           i-t 

CO 

T* 

CD 
CO 

OS    iO 
CO    CM 

CO 

CM 

b- 

co,* 

t^ 

^ 

o   t^ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

OS 

CO 

3 

CO    CO     CM    -^     -H    CO 
CO    OS            (M    -tJ<    iO 

cm                      i-i 

CO 

s 

O    CD 
•«*    CM 

»o 

CM 

OS 

CO    O    CO 

CM 
CM 

CM 

o 
eM 

eM  oo 

CO 

CM 
CM 

OS 

CO 
CO 

U3 

i-l    i-H    CM    CM    CO    t* 
CO    t*    CM    CO    "3    CM 

CO 

CO 
CO 

<-i    CM 

CO 

00    O     OS 

•* 

■* 

CO    i-t 

CM 

CM 

CM 

g2 

OS 

oo 

CO 

00    O 

OS 

1 

CO    i-t 

oo 

MH^I 

CM    CM 

"3 

CM 

3- 

3 

o 
cm 

OS 

CO 

eo 

- 

CO 

OS               ^ 

■*         w 
CO 

T*    o 

©    CO 

00 

l>.    t^    r(< 
CM    i-l 

OS 
CM 
CM 

•<*    «3 

OS    CO 

OS 
CM 

O    OS 

o  t-~ 

CM 

CO 
U3 
CM 

OS 

OS 

1—1 

r-t    CO 
CO 

tK         as 
no 

H                 « 

CM 

«o   CO 
t-  co 

CM 

CM 

O    N    « 
CM 

3 

00    CO 
CO     ** 
CO 

OS 

1-1 

CO    CO 

o, 

CO 

o_ 
co" 

00 

os 

CO 

co 

CM 

co  »o 

OS     1-1 

o 

CM 

8 

n<  oo  h 
»o          CO 

oo 

CO 

OS     OS 
CO      T* 

CM 

lO 

CM 

«o 

CM* 

►•3 
M 

*S 
a 
'5b 

V 
43 

u 

cj 

os 

CM 

CM            CO 
00 

OS    t^ 

CO     i* 
OS 

s 

CO     CM    i-H 

*  h  eo 

5 

CO     ^H 
O     •-• 

eM    CM 

§8 

CM 

co 

OS 

o 

CM 

** 

OS             "0 
H           00 

o 

OS     OS 
OS 

OS    OS    t^ 
i-H    O    CM 

00 
OO 
OS 

CO    "3 

-*  -^ 

00 
tN 

cm" 

1— I 
OS 
i-H 

CO 

U0 

"1 

oo 

00 
CM 

CO    »J0 
00    © 

o 

0O1O    N 
CO 

CO 

co  o 

CO    CM 

^ 

*■* 

00 
OS 
CO 

as 

cm 

O    CO    CO 
CM    rH 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CO 
CM 

«o  >o  lO 

CO 
CM 

eo 

CO 

>os 

CM 

CD 

i-H    O    OS    00    Tj<    tf3    »/3 
t^    CO    O    •*              1-H    U3 

CO 

CO   o 
OS    CM 

CO 

o 

CO    CM    »0 

OS 

t~ 

CM 

00 
00 
CO 

CO 

os 

00 
"3 

M    N    N    N    N    00    O 

N    N    f    M             i-l    OS 

CM 

1--    \ti 

CM    i-H 

•** 

CM 

CO    t--    i-i 
CM    i-l 
CM 

m 

»o 

8 

OS 

CM 

os 

CO 

CO    00    -H    O    CO    (M    CO 
00    lO    ■«*    CO             CM    1^ 

CO 

oo 

OS    iH 

CO     i-l 

CO 
CO 

CM£*. 

OS 

CM 

CO 

OS 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CO    O    ■*    i-H    ■«*    i-l    CO 

O    U    OM             i-H    •** 

o 

CM    00 
CM    •* 

o 

cm  b-  co 

OS 

CM 

CM 

1 

o 

OS 

eo 

M    CN    IN    ■*    lO    •*    >fl 
O    ">*    CO    CO             i-H    ■* 
CM 

CO 
CO 

oo  m 

00 

m  os 

i-l     CO 

CM 

<■*    CO 
CM 

OS 
CO 

OS 

o 
os 

o 

H    CO    »    M    M    H    00 
i*<     00    CO     i-(              i-H    i-l 
<M               i-H 

^1     ^H 

>o    OS    CO 
CO 

^ 

^ 

OS 

g 

c 

1 

. 

b 

t- 
c 
b 

c 

i 
c 

'C 

E 

< 

■> 

) 

i 

I  c 

b 

j 

1 

G 

i 

a 
t 

V 

I 

a 

"f 

c 

'a 

< 

t 

s 

C 
OS 

>- 

J 

c 

e 
s 

'C 
a 

£ 
< 

c 

a 
t 

c- 

p 
e 
C 

1 

I 

a 

*- 

C 

•X 

C 

X 

a 

£ 
< 

c 

(A 

a 

I 

c 

•2 

« 

c 

c 

X 

c 

K 
K 

( 

< 

i 

b 
El 

el 

a 

4; 
c 

! 

a 

.1 

0 

o     . 
■J3    CO 

« s 

">  6 

II 

CP     g 


So?. 

S| 

S  s 

CD    c3 
42   <D 

r-H      CP 

gen 
^0 


8  -a 

g  bo 

O    o 

a 


a 


BUL.  444]  BEANS  49 

At  the  present  time  Europe  and  the  Orient  are  the  main  sources 
of  our  imports.  It  was  not  until  1922  that  European  countries  again 
resumed  the  exportation  of  beans  to  the  United  States.  Since  then, 
however,  their  shipments  to  this  country  have  averaged  418,000  bags 
a  year,  which  is  only  slightly  below  the  pre-war  average. 

Imports  from  the  Orient  are  of  special  interest  to  California 
growers.  The  three  most  important  varieties  imported  from  the 
Orient  are  the  Kotenaski,  the  Otenaski,  and  the  Nagauzura.  The 
Kotenaski  competes  with  our  Small  White;  the  Otenaski,  with  our 
Large  White;  and  the  Nagauzura,  with  our  Pink  and  to  a  lesser 
extent  with  our  other  colored  varieties.  Unfortunately  data  on  the 
amount  of  each  variety  imported  are  not  available.  Consequently  we 
cannot  measure  accurately  the  influence  of  these  importations  upon 
the  prices  of  the  domestic  varieties  with  which  they  compete.  It 
seems,  however,  that  the  domestic  prices  of  Large  Whites  have  been 
most  affected  by  the  Oriental  imports.  Since  1922  prices  of  Large 
Whites  have  been  from  seventy-five  cents  to  a  dollar  lower  than 
the  prices  of  Small  Whites,  although  prior  to  1922  the  prices  of  these 
two  varieties  averaged  the  same.  In  the  opinion  of  the  trade  the 
relatively  large  imports  of  the  Oriental  large  white  beans  as  compared 
with  the  total  United  States  production  of  Large  Whites  are  in  part 
responsible  for  this  price  differential.  On  the  other  hand,  the  impor- 
tation of  Oriental  small  whites  and  colored  varieties  seems  to  have 
affected  the  domestic  prices  of  these  varieties  to  a  much  lesser  extent. 
In  the  case  of  Small  Whites,  for  example,  we  find  that  our  domestic 
prices  have  varied  inversely  in  proportion  to  our  total  production. 
As  compared  with  the  total  United  States  production  of  Small  Whites 
imports  of  Kotenaskies  are  relatively  small  and  consequently  exert 
but  little  influence  upon  our  domestic  prices.  In  the  case  of  the 
colored  varieties,  a  similar  situation  exists,  but  to  a  lesser  degree. 

The  great  proportion  of  the  Oriental  exports  are  shipped  from 
Japan,  although  a  large  part  of  them  are  produced  in  Manchuria  and 
Korea,  During  the  past  four  years  the  United  States  imports  from 
Japan  have  steadily  declined  from  540,000  bags  in  1923  to  204,000 
bags  in  1926.  Japanese  exports  to  other  countries,  however,  have  been 
increasing.  In  1925,  Cuba  bought  three  times  as  many  beans  from 
Japan  as  in  1923,  and  Canada  bought  almost  twice  as  many.  In 
Canada  beans  from  Japan  pay  the  same  import  duty  as  beans  from 
the  United  States,  namely,  42  cents  a  bag.  In  Cuba  beans  from  Japan 
are  at  a  disadvantage  of  only  13  cents  a  bag  as  compared  with  our 


50  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 

beans,23  while  in  this  country  they  are  at  a  disadvantage  of  $1.75  a 
bag.  It  is  chiefly  for  this  reason  that  a  larger  proportion  of  the 
Japanese  exports  are  going  to  Cuba  and  Canada  and  a  smaller  pro- 
portion to  the  United  States. 

Although  our  imports  from  Japan  have  been  decreasing,  that 
country  still  remains  a  large  potential  competitor.  A  substantial  rise 
in  the  domestic  prices  of  the  varieties  with  which  the  Oriental  beans 
compete  will  quickly  stimulate  increased  imports.  This  is  shown  by 
the  experience  during  the  war,  when  our  imports  from  the  Orient 
increased  from  less  than  300,000  bags  in  1915  to  almost  2,000,000  bags 
in  1917.  From  the  standpoint  of  California  growers,  the  most 
significant  difference  between  the  pre-war  and  the  present  import 
trade  in  beans  is  that  the  Orient  is  now  a  permanent  factor  of 
considerable  importance. 

Not  all  of  the  imports  are  consumed  in  this  country.  Reference 
has  been  made  to  the  fact  that  a  relatively  large  proportion  of  the 
imports  during  and  immediately  following  the  war  were  re-exported. 
Even  under  normal  conditions  a  portion  of  the  imports  are  re- 
exported. Most  of  the  foreign  beans  come  into  the  United  States 
under  bond,  and  if  the  domestic  prices  are  not  favorable  they  may  be 
reshipped  to  foreign  markets.  In  such  cases  no  import  duty  is  charged. 
But  if  domestic  prices  are  relatively  more  favorable  than  those  pre- 
vailing in  foreign  markets,  importers  pay  the  duty  and  sell  them  here. 
During  the  past  iive  years  approximately  three-fourths  of  the  United 
States  imports  were  for  domestic  consumption  and  the  remainder  were 
reshipped  to  foreign  markets. 

Net  Exports  and  Net  Imports. — The  foregoing  discussion  of  exports 
and  imports  brings  out  the  fact  that  we  are  constantly  shipping  some 
of  our  domestic  beans  to  foreign  countries  and  importing  some  foreign 
beans  for  domestic  consumption.  In  some  years  our  imports  have 
exceeded  our  exports;  in  other  years  the  opposite  situation  has 
occurred.  The  net  movement  of  our  foreign  trade  in  beans  during 
the  past  seventeen  years  is  shown  in  figure  17.  Before  the  war  the 
United  States  was  definitely  on  an  import  basis.  When  the  war  broke 
out  beans  were  one  of  the  many  food  products  which  Europe  and 
Canada  purchased  from  the  United  States  in  increasing  quantities ; 
consequently  a  net  export  basis  resulted.  But  when  the  United  States 
entered  the  war  the  demands  of  its  own  military  forces  put  it  on  an 
import  basis  again.  Immediately  after  the  war  the  United  States 
again  changed  to  a  net  export  basis,  and  continued  in  that  position 

23  Beans  imported  into  Cuba  from  tho  United  States  pay  a  duty  of  52  cents  a 
bag,  while  other  beans  pay  a  duty  of  65  cents  a  bag. 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


51 


up  to  1922.  During  this  period  European  countries  were  in  a  process 
of  reconstruction  and  purchased  large  quantities  of  beans  from  the 
United  States.  By  1922,  however,  European  production  of  beans  was 
practically  back  to  normal,  and  since  that  time  Europe  has  exported 
beans  to  the  United  States  instead  of  importing  beans  from  this 
country.  Consequently  we  have  been  back  on  a  net  import  basis, 
although  to  a  lesser  degree  than  before  the  war. 

Net  Imports  and  Exports  of  Beans,  United  States,  1909-1926 


Net  Exports  w> 
m 

Not  Imports  g 


900 
600 

1  300 

!  • 

! 

2  300 


3 

^  600 

900 
1200 


NE 

T     E) 

CPOR" 

S 

NET 

IM 

»ORT 

> 

Year  Beginning  July 


Calendar  Year 


Fig.  17. — The  United  States  is  now  on  a  net  import  basis  but  to  a 
lesser  degree  than  before  the  war. 

Data  obtained  by  calculating  the  difference  between  the  general  imports  and  the 
domestic  and  foreign  exports  which  are  given  in  Foreign  Commerce  and  Navigation  of 
the  United  States. 


The  fact  that  we  are  on  a  net  import  basis  regarding  the  total 
foreign  trade  in  beans  does  not,  of  course,  mean  that  the  tariff  is 
equally  effective  in  maintaining  the  domestic  prices  of  each  variety 
above  the  foreign  prices.  The  effectiveness  of  the  tariff  regarding  a 
specific  variety  depends  upon  whether  we  are  exporting  or  importing 
that  particular  variety.  The  present  import  duty  of  $1.75  a  bag  is  of 
little  benefit  to  the  domestic  producers  of  a  variety  that  must  seek 
export  outlets  because  then  the  prices  in  the  domestic  market  are 
largely  determined  by  the  prices  received  in  the  foreign  markets. 


52  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


COST  OF  PRODUCING   BEANS   IN   SANTA  BARBARA   COUNTY,    1927 

In  addition  to  the  economic  information  presented  in  the  foregoing 
pages  growers  are  vitally  interested  in  how  much  it  costs  them  to 
perform  the  operations  necessary  to  produce  beans.  This  knowledge 
gives  them  a  fairly  accurate  idea  of  whether  they  can  continue  to 
produce  the  crop  at  the  probable  level  of  future  values.  In  addition 
it  gives  them  a  basis  for  comparing  their  costs  with  those  of  their 
neighbors  and  with  growers  in  other  sections;  this  information  may 
enable  them  to  reduce  their  own  costs. 

The  summary  table  of  labor  and  material  costs  and  accompanying 
yields,  which  is  presented  below,  is  taken  from  an  enterprise  efficiency 
study  made  in  Santa  Barbara  County  in  1927  by  E.  Smythe,  Assistant 
Farm  Advisor,  and  Messrs.  L.  W.  Fluharty  and  F.  R.  Wilcox,  Exten- 
sion Specialists  in  Farm  Management.  This  study  covers  a  period  of 
one  year  only  and  is  based  upon  records  from  relatively  few  farms; 
its  results  should,  therefore,  not  be  taken  as  conclusive.  When  records 
for  several  years  covering  a  relatively  large  number  of  farms  have 
been  obtained,  it  will  be  possible  to  measure  the  important  factors 
which  influence  the  variations  in  cost.  Such  information  should 
enable  growers  to  operate  more  efficiently. 

There  is  a  wide  variation  in  the  cost  of  producing  beans,  as  is 
shown  in  table  7,  column  2.  On  the  eighteen  farms  from  which  records 
were  obtained  the  cost  of  labor  and  material24  per  100  pounds  varied 
from  $1.56  to  $5.58.  The  average  cost  per  100  pounds  for  the  nine 
farmers  having  the  lowest  cost  amounted  to  $1.93  as  compared  with 
an  average  of  $4.10  for  the  nine  farmers  having  the  highest  cost. 
Variations  in  yield  per  acre  appear  to  be  one  reason  for  the  differ- 
ences in  cost  per  100  pounds.  The  average  yield  for  the  low-cost 
group  was  1,185  pounds  per  acre,  whereas  the  average  yield  for  the 
high-cost  group  was  only  800  pounds  per  acre.  The  figures  also 
indicate  that  one  reason  for  the  low  yields  was  that  growers  did  not 
give  their  crop  sufficient  care.  The  nine  growers  with  the  largest 
yields  spent  an  average  of  $29.96  per  acre  for  labor  and  materials  as 
compared  with  $21.46  spent  by  the  nine  growers  having  the  smallest 
yields. 


24  Only  labor  and  material  costs  are  presented.  Other  costs  such  as  interest 
on  land  and  taxes  were  omitted  from  this  table  because  they  do  not  enter  directly 
into  the  cost  of  producing  beans.  For  instance,  some  growers'  lands  are  valued 
at  relatively  high  figures  because  of  their  location  with  respect  to  oil  and  sub- 
division tracts. 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


53 


TABLE  7 

Labor  and  Material  Costs  of  Producing  Beans  on  Eighteen  Farms  in 
Santa  Barbara  County,  1927 

(Costs  per  hundredweight  (cwt.),  cost  per  acre,  and  average  yield  per  acre) 


Farm 
number 

Labor  and  material  costs 

Average 

Yield 
per  acre 

Cost  per  cwt. 

Cost  per  acre 

21 

$1.56 

$20.21 

pounds 
1,297 

27 

1.73 

32.25 

1,878 

17 

1.81 

23.14 

1,292 

3 

1.84 

17.00 

924 

12 

1.90 

18.98 

1,000 

22 

2.08 

28.76 

1,382 

9 

2.10 

16.27 

777 

11 

2.13 

30.51 

1,431 

10 

2.18 

14.95 

684 

7 

2.61 

26.66 

1,023 

18 

2.98 

38.41 

1,288 

23 

3.05 

18.99 

623 

5 

3.17 

25.23 

1,158 

4 

4.08 

44.52 

1,090 

19 

4.88 

19.24 

394 

20 

5.06 

19.83 

392 

25 

5.48 

43.89 

801 

16 

5.58 

23.99 

429 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The  authors  of  this  bulletin  wish  to  express  their  thanks  and 
indebtedness  to  the  following  organizations  which  have  generously 
contributed  from  their  data  and  their  time:  the  California  Coopera- 
tive Crop  Reporting  Service;  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics, 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture ;  the  Bureau  of  Foreign  and 
Domestic  Commerce,  United  States  Department  of  Commerce;  the 
Agricultural  Legislative  Committee;  the  Division  of  Agricultural 
Economics,  University  of  California;  the  Division  of  Agronomy, 
University  of  California;  the  California  Lima  Bean  Growers  Associa- 
tion; the  California  Bean  Growers  Association;  the  California  Bean 
Dealers  Association;  H.  C.  Rowley,  California  Fruit  News;  and  many 
bean  growers  and  bean  dealers  throughout  the  state.  Farm  advisors 
in  the  important  bean-growing  counties  have  also  furnished  much 
valuable  information. 


APPENDIX  TO  TABLES 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


55 


£*§ 

CD^    ■ 

S  ®  o 

a"  P-> 

P 

m  «*■ 

CD  P 


-<°H 


jo    rf^ 
<1    I 
n  m 

CD 


td 


CD  ►> 


O 

CO 

GO 

*     P 

►  8f 


arcs 


w 


C*    ,~N 

o  w 

00     .. 

M 

U    o 


<t>  "•• 

e-t- 
00     CD 

CO  o 

►rt    Ha 

9  2 


-t- 

o 

f 

(0 

3 

•: 

: 

-•   1 

f  1 

5'  • 

1.  e 

ll 

1 

1 

z{  O  : 

E>     O    v 

3    o    c 

s    :      : 

>    :      : 

I 

s 

2? 

0 

■r  I 

2  1 

j 

n 

?! 

r  : 

i 

r  1 

0  i 

s  - 

n 

! 

o     P     O     C 

i"  P  P  ] 

!i 

1    \ 

I 

i" 
» 

co 

oo 

S3 

to 

CO    h- 
tO    Cn 

to 

o 

CO    H-    • 
O    00 

CO 

to 

00 

to 

>»-  to 

cn   cn 

to 

Cn    >— 
O    CO 

OS   o 

CO 

Cn 

o 

co 

OS     »* 

co   o 

CO 
00 

o§ 

eo 
OS 

00 
to 

to    Cn 
to    Cn 
OS    00 

to 

cn 

o 

as 

^1   o 

CO 

^1 

I—    Cn 
Cn   co 
-i  to 

to 

Cn 

to 

2§ 

CO    o 

CO 
00 

o 

OS 
Cn 

CO    -<| 

o  to 

OS 
OS 

CO 
OS 

Cn   os 

CO 
CO 

00 

i— >    CO 

co  o 
o  o 

Cn 
to 

to 
:      cn 

:       to 

:       00    Cn 

OS     rfk. 

CO 

^1 
oo 
to 

•—  to 
to    ~J 

co  to 

co 

:      ° 

00 

to 

OS     OS 

:       CO   ~j 

CO 

to 

"o 
oo 

OS 

CO 

oo  to 

co    !*• 

oo 

to 

OS 

cn    O 
oo  oo 

CO 

to 
to 

CO 

k-   to 

CO    co 
to   CO 

© 

1  & 

Cn    ►— 

:      os  co 
oo  o 

CO 

to 

co 

en 
•J 

os 

to   to          1—   to                                          ffi  M 

»**©             M    OO            OS    tO             M    1-    to    Oi 
tOOSCn>*«-©C©CnCntO©©CnOOi»».rf». 

CO 

to 

to  to         t—  co                                      os  »-» 

©    »*.            M    (O    H    ^1    U                    1—    coco 
©©Cntf».©tOtO^ItOOOtOcocnCnCn 

CO 

to 

cn 

OS 

to 

to 

oo 

CO 

CO 

o 

in 

-J 

CO 

Cn 

CO 

to 

Oi 

s 

** 

*> 

~J 

CO 

Cn 

to 

CO 

Cn 

Cn 

CO 

to 

OS 

a 

no 

H 

o 

0 
DO 

> 

- 

p 
n 

td 

CO 

o 

K> 

t> 

H 

p 

o 

► 

> 

00 

tel 

^" 

DO 

Q 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

H 

3 

r+ 

a 

CD 
M 

1 

h-» 

CD 

to 

<3i 

56 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


TABLE  9 

Acreage  of  Limas  and  Baby  Limas,  California,  1919-1927 


Year 


1919 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 
1927 


Lima 

Baby  Limas 

124,000 

20,750 

130,000 

20,000 

90,000 

13,500 

100,000 

19,000 

75,000 

20,000 

54,000 

20,000 

58,000 

25,000 

100,000 

45,000 

100,000 

33,500 

Sources  of  data:  Compilations  made  by  the  California  Lima  Bean  Growers 
Association. 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


57 


p  a> 

o,  <"i 
^  CD 

©  *■  a 

e-t-  0  GO 

"    §  O 

P  «rl- 

mBH 

to  CD  CD 


C    3    P    rt> 


F  S 


g  • 


£  3 

cr  p 


'•         ._!         ^  ^ 

M  CO    I         D 

CO" 

bo 

OS 


53  <° 

3   to 

§ 

cr 

P^  CO 

5 
0 

6" 

P-  0 

CO 
en 
O 

P-g 

P 

0 

P^ 
•4    £2 

> 

0 
0 

0)    CD 

O 
0 

2, 

CR 

CD    H» 

P 

CD    H 

•d 

P    O 

13 
P- 

r 

3 

p- 

<    t_j 

CD 

cr 

p 
si 

CD  3D 

g 

a 

Pj 

?r 

*  w 

p 

r 

3 

H>^ 

a- 

CO0TC5 
to  i-i 

co  • 

CO  cs 
bO  o 

Oi  p 


I? 

►d  o 

CD    » 

Pj 

P 

t-feP 

3  * 

as 

'      et- 
QD 

u 

p  co 


o  co 

H»  P 

.  s 

r*  co 


H 


St; 

O    tO 
H3    O 


-3 

1 

2 

-■  1 

5'  : 

!.  c 

1 

2i 

D 

I 

3 

3 

3 

5    0 

( 

q 

1 

2 

3i  6 

§  ! 

n 

ii 

2  - 

S2 

l  s: 

0     P 

2;  - 

*  i 

h 

i 
1 

3 

1 

Cn 

CO 

to   • 

h-  "co    : 
os   O   : 
CO    Cn    1 

00 

O 

CO 

to   co   : 

co   co    : 
CO   0   : 

CO 
tO 

0 

co  ; 

to   00   : 
so   os   : 

h-    00    : 

to 

2 

to         • 

Cn    OO    : 
Cn    co    : 
O    -4    I 

co 
Cn 

os 

00 

to    OS    : 

00     OS 
*.    O    : 

to 

en 

OO    OS 
OS    00 
1— '    tO 

CO 

OS 

Cn 
to 

en    0    : 
O    00 
1— »    O 

0 

la  ~t-* 
-<i  to 
OS   en 

CO 

O 
"►*>• 
CO 
00 

5"    ' 
CO  "►— 
^1    Cn 

-J  0 

s 

00 

CO 

to 

O     CO 
CO     CO 

to    OS 

CO 

00 

to 

0 
^1 

CO 
Cn  "►— 
OS     CO 
CO    Cn 

to 

Cn 

to 

CO 
00 

to 

OS    tO 

CO 

CO 

Cn 

to 

OS   00 

0  •-» 

CO     OS 

to 
en 

0 

3 

JO 

lo  to 

£2 

CD 

Cn 

1 

to 

en  co 

5  s 

00 

CO 

0 

V|    OS 

00     tO 
CO    CO 

CO 

to 

To 
00 

00 

to 

to  'to 

OS    -J 

en  0 

to 

CO 

to 

00 

to 

00    CO 

00   0 
en  ^ 

CO 

to 
to 

CO 

os 

CO 
Ilk. 

to 

OS     OS 

to    OS 
OS   en 

00 
OS 

Cn 

:      co 
to- 

00  j— 

"co     O 
co    tO 

CO 

to 

CO 

00 

ss 

01 

Tt>»          en   en          -4   1^                 to  Is 
t—ooi-'to^ienosoooseneococoijk. 

tOOSOOtOI-'OOI-'OOH-^tOOSH- 

CO 

to 
tfk. 

00 

CO 

to               k*                                en 

"os         to  "cc  M  CO  to               "I—oo 

MMtOUitkOOiMOl^SMMltk 

to^^oi^oooMtooaxnuio 

CO 

to 
cn 

0 
to 

6°                                                               ** 

rf*         enosi-«ento               oos 
toocooentocoi»^en>i>^joocoen 
oen»*>.cotoo«oosoH-»j>.^joH- 

CO 

to 

OS 

a 

to 

§ 

to 

CO 

0 

to 

I 

00 
0 

0 
0 

CO 

0 

0 

»o 

"0 

s 

! 

2 

0 

►1 

3 
p 

• 

cr 
P 
crq 


58 


UNIVEESITY   OF   CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


TABLE  11 

Production  of  Beans  in  the  United  States,  by  Varieties,  *1921-1926 
(Thousands  of  100-pound  bags,  i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Variety 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

Normal^ 

Lima 

700 
120 
643 
633 
2,080 
121 

1,200 
150 
690 
313 

3,345 
191 
150 
300 
31 
100 
75 
525 
418 

800 
220 
669 
935 
4,470 
215 
480 
275 

29 
150 

50 
640 
701 

467 

225 

275 

1,052 

3,857 

485 

684 

250 

20 

60 

50 

865 

675 

790 

290 

675 

1,511 

4,879 

670 

918 

400 

22 

65 

125 

877 

611 

1,250 

575 

634 

1,116 

3,919 

246 

801 

460 

34 

100 

116 

695 

466 

850 

Baby  Lima 

400 

Pink 

630 

Pinto 

1,200 

Small  White 

4,100 

Large  White 

360 

Great  Northern 

800 

Blackeye 

400 
60 
60 
125 
377 
321 

360 

Bayo 

25 

Cranberry 

95 

California  Red 

100 

Red  Kidney 

750 

OthersJ 

530 

Total 

5,640 

7,488 

9,634 

8,965 

11,835 

10,412 

10,200 

*  The  varieties  listed  separately  are  only  those  which  are  grown  in  California  or  which  compete  with 
those  varieties  grown  in  this  state.  Yellow  Eye  and  White  Kidney  grown  in  New  York,  Vermont,  and 
Maine  are  included  in  "others." 

t  Present  normal  production  estimated  by  inspection  of  graphs  drawn  from  data.  A  simple  arith- 
metical average  of  two  or  more  years  could  not  be  used  in  obtaining  a  figure  representative  of  the  normal 
production  because  of  wide  variations  in  the  data. 

t  "Others"  include  a  small  amount  of  some  of  the  varieties  which  are  listed  separately.  For  instance, 
the  entire  production  of  12,000  bags  in  1924,  12,000  bags  in  1925,  and  20,000  bags  in  1926  produced  in 
Nebraska  are  included  in  others  because  a  classification  by  varieties  was  not  available. 

Sources  of  data :  Mimeographed  release  U.  S.  Bur.  of  Agr.  Econ.,  except  for 
California  production,  which  is  from  table  1. 


Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


59 


TABLE  12 

United  States  Bean  Production,  by  Selected  Varieties,*  in  Main 
Bean-producing  States,  1924-1926 

(Thousands  of  100-pound  bags,  i.e.,  000  omitted) 


State  and 
year 

Small 
White 

Large 
White 

Great 
Northern 

Red 
Kidney 

Pinto 

Pinks 

California 
Red 

Bayo 

New  York : 

1924 

345 
262 
213 

3,307 
4,244 
3,378 

173 
219 

82 

158 

207 
119 

444 

219 
206 

394 
621 
437 

1925... 

1926... 

Michigan: 
1924... 

1925 

1926... 

Montana: 
1924.     .. 

171 

244 
241 

464 
594 
456 

49 
80 
97 

1925.. 

1926.. . . 

Idaho: 
1924 

19 
30 
21 

107 

205 

21 

1925 

1926 

26 

Wyoming: 
1924. 

1925     . 

8 
13 

560 

1,277 

619 

491 
225 
483 

1926 

Colorado: 

1924 

1925 

1926 

7 

7 

New  Mexico: 

1924 

10 
5 
5 

250 
650 
600 

15 

20 

29 

275 
675 
634 

1925 

1926 

California: 

1924 

65 
200 
200 

121 
143 
100 

3,857 
4,879 
3,919 

40 
25 
15 

7 
14 
9 

485 
670 
246 

20 
30 
45 

7 

7 
7 

865 

877 
695 

50 
125 
90 

17 

1925 

13 

1926 

25 

Othersf: 

1924 

1 

1 
1 

1,052 
1,511 
1,116 

31 

1925 

9t 

1926 

9* 

Total: 

1924 

684 
918 
801 

50 
125 
116 

20 

1925 

22 

1926 

34 

•Varieties  produced  only  in  California  are  not  included;  production  of  these  varieties  is  given  in 
table  1. 

t  Other  states  include  Maine,  Vermont,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  Arizona. 

%  Produced  mainly  in  New  Mexico  and  Arizona;  the  amounts  produced  in  each  state,  however,  are 
not  available. 

Sources  of  data:  U.  S.  Bur.  of  Agr.  Econ.,  Crops  and  Markets,  3  (Supp.  12)  : 
423.     1926;  except  for  California,  which  is  from  table  1. 


60 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


O 


co 

<M 

OS 

-* 

b. 

»o 

o 

CO 

lO 

o 

O 

-<*< 

Oi 

eo»-HOi-*c<505'<*<iO'>*oo 

rt     .-1    rH              CO     CM     CM              .-H     CM 

OS 

r^^-^©0©CM»-i©CO 

. 

iOMrtH*HNcobM 

o 

,~1 

i-H    CM    CO    i-l                    CM 

.2 

u 

CM 

0*00(OONWW    ©    © 

eJ 

Oi 

66fflT|idHHo6ai6 

(M   •>*<                      >h  eq 

a 

1 

«*- 

O 

eo 

oot^co-^o»cocooo 

0) 

cm 

bO 

OS 

NNtOoiNrHtOiO^iiO 

C 

""* 

M    M    iO            »■*            *-« 

0) 
PL, 

CN» 
CN 

OS 

eot^>o<Ma>t^ooo© 

MOTtiidoTjicbcotbio 

cm         ,-c         ,-<         co   1-h 

OS 

t^cooooo»ocoot-»©© 

OOCOOt}<05(Mi-io6cX5 

CM    r-H             rt             CM 

03 

* 

HNlOtC»i«IN«NO 

>> 

CO 

OOWXXMrHNOSW* 

(M 

°°.   M.  °.   "*.   °.  °°.   N.   rt.   °l    N. 

o 

<D    N     CO     IN    •*    N     lO     lf>     N    CO* 

CO     CO     CO                       i—l                       r- 1     y-t 

0 

" 

»MtBfflOO^iON>«iO 

U3 

©•*fCOCOl^~HOO»0000 

(M 

COCOOCOTjtrtCMOOCMOO 

*"* 

ID     O)    t    iH     (O    ^              i-l»0 

., 

(V 

> 

o 

T3 

HNU5M*NO»M01 

.2 

Tf< 

ONNINNOllNaiOO'* 

CO 

iflONNM'^N'JINID 

** 

CO    H     !D     lO     tO    M              lO     00    CO 

Cj 

o 

to 

bi) 

cS 

43 

•M 

NNtOl|<MOO*OCNI» 

o 

CO 

i-Hrt00CO©©O5COOi00 

(-1 

<N 

a> 

rttDNnCl^^OONN 

X! 

CM             CM    O    »0 

§• 

CM    »-i 

3 
£ 

t-»t^cO©»OCM'»*<COC©»>- 

CN 

HOONlOOOOOT(lOOO 

(M 

t^CMCMfN-»N.^H»OOOCMO 

®HNtOH^«lON» 
CN,              ^     rt     _     _                        cs, 

aNte^a^iHoooow 

lO!OW!O!O00H!OtDN 

CM 

»OCOCOCNOOt>''-'CO»C5 

Tti          r-ii«oot^"5»-iioeo 

Tt<     CM              CO                       CO 

>> 

.2 
> 

c 

q 

£ 

> 

s 

3  -a   <u 

b.g   J 

H 

g£   >> 

0)    C  :« 

0 

> 

s 

00 

a. 

b 
c. 

5    cj 

s 

c 
> 

pq 

c 

a 

H 
-a 
a 

ts*T 

-s  5 

.8.S 

c3   S 

,=3   §* 

£<» 

a>     ~ 

-m 

M     «2 

O    3 

*h  be 

■5 

3  a 

bD-rH 

«  >> 

*H    **-1 

s?  * 

>    PS 

O   m 

b* 

fH       CO 

a3  a 

©  £ 

,d 

rf.2 

2-s 

i?^ 

s  -e 

w   £ 

^o 

00    en 

<r>  qj 

13  rs 

0  ^ 

«  ^ 

rt"*3 

^  _ 

<D    B 

m^ 

CJ     ^ 

^  X3 
55  +2 

0  d 

os  0 

O  O 

*.  -"3 

pB 

-t-3      ^H 

O 

^»«H 

^   a, 

«H     * 

2  2 

53    O 

2  w 

u 

EQ     ?3 

■5  ► 

0  ^ 

» 

<D  ^ 

2  0 

!3    -M 

rH 

O     03 

>h 

"5     « 

01 

s 

P. 

S^ 

fe  bo 

CO 

T3 

rt*3 

■d  ^ 

-fi 

CM*0 

C 

Or^ 

O 

a> 

DO 

o 

rces 
tain 
ber. 

ra 

O     O   -M 

W       e> 

go 

^  0 

Bul.  444] 


BEANS 


61 


TABLE  14 

Average  Prices  of  California  Beans  by  Varieties,  F.O.B.  California, 

1909-1926 

(Dollars  per  100-pound  bags) 


Crop 
year* 

Lima 

Baby 

Lima 

Pink 

Small 
White 

Large 
White 

Black- 
eye 

Bayo 

Cran- 
berry 

Cali- 
fornia 
Red 

Red 
Kidney 

1909 

4  00 
5.45 
5.40 
5.30 

4.70 
5.10 
3.25 
3.65 

4.50 
3.55 
4.15 
4.95 

3.60 
3.50 
4.05 
4.45 

4  65 
5.85 
3.80 
3.30 

5.40 
4.70 
3.55 
3.45 

4  45 

3.95 
4.15 
4.75 

6.30 
5.20 
4.25 
4.05 

5.05 

1910 

5.55 

1911 

4.80 

1912 

4  05 

1913 

5.80 
5.15 

3.85 
4.00 

5.35 
4.90 

4.00 
4.75 

5.50 
5.25 

5  60 
4.95 

5.00 

4.70 

5.20 
5.40 

4.75 

1914 

5.25 

1915 

4.90 

5.05 

6.80 

6.55 

3.75 

5  50 

5  35 

5  50 

6.60 

1916 

10.45 
12.75 

9.55 

8.60 
8.10 
6.30 

11.95 
12.15 

8.00 

11.60 

12.00 

7.55 

6.80 
8.20 
4.80 

8.15 

8.75 
6.85 

8.90 
11.70 

7.25 

8.50 
8.70 
5.90 

10.90 

1917 

12.40 

1918 

8.20f 

11.75 

1919 

11.80 

11.45 

6.50 

6.25 

6  40 

7.20 

9.70 

6.95 

7.90 

12  75 

1920 

6.10 

5.55 

5.95 

4.00 

4.20 

6.45 

9.40 

6.45 

7.15 

9  50 

1921 

7.60 

7.50 

5.30 

5.70 

5.95 

4  55 

5.45 

7.15 

4.65 

7  35 

1922 

7.85 

9.90 

5.05 

6.35 

6.45 

4.75 

6.65 

7.05 

5.00 

7.25 

1923 

10.50 

10.50 

4.85 

6.20 

5.30 

6.75 

6.25 

5.65 

5.70 

7.45 

1924 

13.90 

12.75 

7.50 

7.40 

6.05 

9.65 

7.50 

7.40 

7.75 

10.15 

1925 

9.90 

9.55 

5  60 

6.05 

5.25 

5.70 

11.05 

7.55 

5.20 

9.95 

1926J 

6.15 

5.10 

4.95 

6.30 

4.35 

3.95 

6.90 

6.55 

5.05 

8.75 

*  Crop  year  includes  from  September  of  the  year  given  through  August  of  the  following  year. 

t  Five  months  only. 

%  September  through  July. 

Sources  of  data:  Compiled  from  the  weekly  issues  of  the  California  Fruit 
News  except  as  follows:  Red  Kidney;  August,  1913,  to  July,  1918,  weekly  issues 
of  the  Pacific  Rural  Press,  June  to  August,  1920,  Thursday  issues  of  the  Com- 
mercial Daily  News. 


62 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


TABLE  15 

Stocks  of  Beans  in  California  Warehouses  by  Varieties  and  by  Months, 
1926,  1927,  and  Five- Year  Average,  1922-1926 

(On  the  first  of  the  month;  in  thousands  of  bags,  i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Cali- 

Date 

Large 

Small 

Pink 

Black- 

Lima 

Cran- 

fornia 

Red 

Bayo 

Baby 

White 

White 

eye 

berry 

Red 

Kidney 

Lima 

January 

Av.  1922-26... 

74 

200 

388 

115 

330 

31 

78 

21 

16 

77 

1926.... 

26 

131 

323 

179 

405 

26 

109 

13 

3 

128 

1927.... 

16 

134 

417 

353 

687 

32 

97 

19 

16 

322 

February 

Av.  1922-26... 

66 

168 

317 

95 

259 

25 

73 

20 

12 

51 

1926... 

25 

120 

275 

132 

331 

20 

103 

12 

3 

88 

1927.... 

17 

110 

369 

300 

579 

30 

82 

21 

13 

287 

March 

Av.  1922-26  ... 

57 

136 

270 

72 

196 

206 

65 

15 

10 

36 

1926 

20 

91 

219 

107 

261 

14 

88 

8 

2 

63 

1927.... 

14 

91 

306 

237 

499 

26 

72 

19 

13 

227 

April 

Av.  1922-26  ... 

46 

120 

237 

62 

173 

18 

61 

15 

10 

32 

1926... 

21 

92 

201 

95 

247 

14 

77 

7 

2 

60 

1927.... 

11 

67 

250 

201 

466 

23 

64 

17 

11 

179 

May 

Av.  1922-26... 

43 

107 

216 

53 

141 

17 

58 

13 

9 

26 

1926... 

21 

83 

177 

70 

215 

11 

71 

6 

1 

45 

1927.... 

9 

38 

205 

190 

416 

21 

60 

15 

10 

159 

June 

Av.  1922-26 .... 

32 

87 

194 

38 

78 

14 

52 

10 

7 

15 

1926.... 

20 

73 

143 

60 

106 

6 

65 

3 

1 

24 

1927.... 

8 

18 

158 

161 

347 

17 

50 

13 

9 

125 

July 

A  v.  1922-26  ... 

27 

65 

160 

31 

53 

10 

44 

6 

5 

11 

1926.... 

18 

60 

117 

50 

73 

4 

61 

2 

1 

18 

1927.... 

4 

9 

109 

144 

276 

11 

32 

12 

8 

109 

August 

Av.  1922-26  ... 

24 

50 

127 

27 

37 

8 

33 

5 

4 

1 

1926.... 

18 

44 

92 

44 

62 

3 

55 

1 

* 

14 

1927.... 

4 

4 

85 

132 

223 

6 

21 

8 

7 

94 

September 

Av.  1922-26... 

22 

41 

101 

21 

20 

7 

26 

5 

3 

4 

1926.... 

16 

42 

74 

45 

45 

2 

45 

5 

* 

9 

1927.... 

5 

2 

63 

118 

167 

5 

13 

13 

6 

67 

October 

Av.  1922-26... 

39 

109 

125 

95 

344 

5 

24 

11 

7 

111 

1926... 

17 

131 

113 

191 

480 

2 

25 

8 

6 

250 

1927.... 

7 

144 

81 

208 

559 

5 

11 

12 

9 

166 

November 

Av.  1922-26  ... 

57 

220 

377 

189 

512 

30 

66 

18 

15 

162 

1926.... 

19 

180 

381 

403 

925 

31 

84 

22 

11 

374 

1927.... 

13 

249 

375 

277 

822 

37 

75 

38 

26 

225 

December 

Av.  1922-26  ... 

59 

202 

449 

178 

468 

40 

88 

23 

15 

156 

1926... 

20 

156 

434 

359 

810 

44 

109 

27 

16 

381 

1927.... 

*  Less  than  500  bags. 

Source  of  data:  Compiled  from  monthly  warehouse  reports  issued  by  California 
Bean  Dealers  Association. 


STATION  PUBLICATIONS  AVAILABLE  FOR  FREE   DISTRIBUTION 


No. 

253.  Irrigation  and  Soil  Conditions  in  the 
Sierra   Nevada   Foothills,    California. 

262.  Citrus  Diseases   of   Florida   and   Cuba 

Compared   with   those   of   California. 

263.  Size  Grades  for  Ripe  Olives. 

268.   Growing  and  Grafting  Olive  Seedlings. 

273.  Preliminary  Report  on  Kearney  Vine- 
yard Experimental  Drain,  Fresno 
County,    California. 

276.  The  Pomegranate. 

277.  Sudan   Grass. 

278.  Grain    Sorghums. 

279.  Irrigation   of   Rice  in   California. 
283.   The  Olive  Insects  of  California. 
294.   Bean   Culture  in   California. 

304.   A   Study  of  the  Effects  of  Freezes  on 

Citrus    in    California. 
310.  Plum    Pollination. 

312.  Mariout   Barley. 

313.  Pruning      Young      Deciduous      Fruit 

Trees. 
319.   Caprifigs    and    Caprification. 

324.  Storage  of   Perishable  Fruit  at  Freez- 

ing Temperatures. 

325.  Rice     Irrigation     Measurements     and 

Experiments    in    Sacramento   Valley, 

1914-1919. 
328.   Prune   Growing   in   California. 
331.   Phylloxera-Resistant    Stocks. 
335.   Cocoanut   Meal    as    a    Feed    for   Dairy 

Cows   and   Other  Livestock. 

339.  The    Relative    Cost    of    Making    Logs 

from   Small   and   Large  Timber. 

340.  Control     of     the     Pocket     Gopher     in 

California. 

343.  Cheese    Pests    and    Their    Control. 

344.  Cold    Storage   as   an   Aid   to   the   Mar- 

keting of  Plums. 

346.  Almond    Pollination. 

347.  The  Control  of  Red  Spiders  in  Decid- 

uous Orchards. 

348.  Pruning  Young  Olive  Trees. 

349.  A    Study    of    Sidedraft    and    Tractor 

Hitches. 

350.  Agriculture      in      Cut-over      Redwood 

Lands. 

353.  Bovine   Infectious   Abortion. 

354.  Results  of  Rice  Experiments  in   1922. 

357.  A    Self-mixing    Dusting    Machine    for 

Applying      Dry       Insecticides       and 
Fungicides. 

358.  Black     Measles,     Water    Berries,     and 

Related  Vine  Troubles. 

361.  Preliminary    Yield    Tables    for    Second 

Growth   Redwood. 

362.  Dust  and  the  Tractor   Engine. 

363.  The  Pruning  of  Citrus  Trees  in  Cali- 

fornia. 

364.  Fungicidal    Dusts    for   the    Control    of 

Bunt. 

365.  Avocado  Culture  in   California. 

366.  Turkish  Tobacco  Culture,  Curing  and 

Marketing. 

367.  Methods  of  Harvesting  and  Irrigation 

in   Relation   of  Mouldy  "Walnuts. 

368.  Bacterial  Decomposition  of  Olives  dur- 

ing  Pickling. 

369.  Comparison     of     Woods     for     Butter 

Boxes. 

370.  Browning  of  Yellow  Newtown  Apples. 

371.  The   Relative   Cost   of   Yarding   Small 

and   Large  Timber. 

373.  Pear   Pollination. 

374.  A  Survey  of  Orchard  Practices  in  the 

Citrus    Industry  of    Southern    Cali- 
fornia. 

375.  Results   of   Rice   Experiments   at  Cor- 

tena,    1923. 

376.  Sun-Drying  and  Dehydration  of  Wal- 

nuts. 

377.  The   Cold   Storage   of   Pears. 
379.  Walnut  Culture  in  California. 


BULLETINS 
No. 


380. 

382. 

385. 
386. 

387. 
388. 

389. 
390. 

391. 

392. 
393. 
394. 

S95. 
396. 

397. 

398. 
399. 


400. 
401. 

402. 
404. 
405. 
406. 
407. 


408. 
409. 


410. 
411. 
412. 

414. 

415. 
416. 

417. 

418. 

419. 

420. 

421. 
422. 

423. 

424. 

425. 
426. 

427. 

428. 

429. 


Growth  of  Eucalyptus  in  California 
Plantations. 

Pumping  for  Drainage  in  the  San 
Joaquin   Valley,    California. 

Pollination    of    the    Sweet    Cherry. 

Pruning  Bearing  Deciduous  Fruit 
Trees. 

Fig  Smut. 

The  Principles  and  Practice  of  Sun- 
drying  Fruit. 

Berseem  or  Egyptian   Clover. 

Harvesting  and  Packing  Grapes  in 
California. 

Machines  for  Coating  Seed  Wheat  with 
Copper    Carbonate    Dust. 

Fruit    Juice    Concentrates. 

Crop  Sequences  at  Davis. 

Cereal  Hay  Production  in  California. 
Feeding  Trials  with  Cereal  Hay. 

Bark   Diseases   of   Citrus  Trees. 

The  Mat  Bean  (Phaseolus  aconitifo 
lius). 

Manufacture  of  Roquefort  Type  Cheese 
from   Goat's   Milk. 

Orchard  Heating  in  California. 

The  Blackberry  Mite,  the  Cause  of 
Redberry  Disease  of  the  Himalaya 
Blackberry,    and   its   Control. 

The  Utilization  of  Surplus  Plums. 

Cost  of  Work  Horses  on  California 
Farms. 

The  Codling  Moth  in  Walnuts. 

The  Dehydration  of  Prunes. 

Citrus  Culture  in  Central  California. 

Stationary  Spray  Plants  in  California. 

Yield,  Stand  and  Volume  Tables  for 
White  Fir  in  the  California  Pine 
Region. 

Alternaria  Rot  of  Lemons. 

The  Digestibility  of  Certain  Fruit  By- 
products as  Determined  for  Rumi- 
nants. 

Factors  Affecting  the  Quality  of  Fresh 
Asparagus  after  it  is  Harvested. 

Paradichlorobenzene  as  a  Soil  Fumi- 
gant. 

A  Study  of  the  Relative  Values  of  Cer- 
tain Root  Crops  and  Salmon  Oil  as 
Sources  of  Vitamin  A  for  Poultry. 

Planting  and  Thinning  Distances  for 
Deciduous  Fruit  Trees. 

The  Tractor  on   California  Farms. 

Culture  of  the  Oriental  Persimmon 
in    California. 

Poultry  Feeding:  Principles  and 
Practice. 

A  Study  of  Various  Rations  for 
Finishing  Range  Calves  as  Baby 
Beeves. 

Economic  Aspects  of  the  Cantaloupe 
Industry. 

Rice  and  Rice  By-products  as  Feeds 
for   Fattening   Swine. 

Beef  Cattle  Feeding  Trials,    1921-24. 

Cost  of  Producing  Almonds  in  Cali- 
fornia ;  a  Progress  Report. 

Apricots  (Series  on  California  Crops 
and  Prices) . 

The  Relation  of  Rate  of  Maturity  to 
Egg  Production. 

Apple  Growing  in  California. 

Apple  Pollination  Studies  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

The  Value  of  Orange  Pulp  for  Milk 
Production. 

The  Relation  of  Maturity  of  Cali- 
fornia Plums  to  Shipping  and 
Dessert   Quality. 

Economic  Status  of  the  Grape  Industry. 


No. 

87.  Alfalfa. 
117.  The    Selection    and    Cost    of    a    Small 

Pumping  Plant. 
127.  House   Fumigation. 
129.  The  Control  of  Citrus  Insects. 
136.  Melilotus    indica    as    a    Green-Manure 

Crop  for  California. 
144.  Oidium    or    Powdery    Mildew    of    the 

Vine. 
157.  Control  of  the  Pear  Scab. 
164.   Small  Fruit  Culture  in  California. 
166.  The  County  Farm  Bureau. 
170.  Fertilizing    California     Soils    for    the 

1918  Crop. 
173.  The    Construction    of   the   Wood-Hoop 

Silo. 

178.  The  Packing  of  Apples  in  California. 

179.  Factors   of   Importance   in    Producing 

Milk  of  Low  Bacterial  Count. 

202.  County   Organizations   for   Rural   Fire 

Control. 

203.  Peat   as   a  Manure   Substitute. 
209.   The  Function  of  the  Farm  Bureau. 
212.   Salvaging    Rain-Damaged    Prunes. 
215.  Feeding  Dairy  Cows  in  California. 
217.  Methods  for  Marketing  Vegetables   in 

California. 

230.  Testing  Milk,   Cream,   and   Skim  Milk 

for  Butterfat. 

231.  The   Home   Vineyard. 

232.  Harvesting    and    Handling    California 

Cherries   for   Eastern    Shipment. 
234.  Winter  Injury  to  Young  Walnut  Trees 
during  1921-22. 

238.  The  Apricot  in  California. 

239.  Harvesting     and     Handling     Apricots 

and  Plums  for  Eastern   Shipment. 

240.  Harvesting    and    Handling    Pears    for 

Eastern   Shipment. 

241.  Harvesting  and  Handling  Peaches  for 

Eastern   Shipment. 
243.  Marmalade  Juice  and  Jelly  Juice  from 

Citrus  Fruits. 
244    Central  Wire  Bracing  for  Fruit  Trees. 
245.  Vine  Pruning  Systems. 

248.  Some   Common    Errors   in   Vine  Prun- 

ing and  Their  Remedies. 

249.  Replacing    Missing    Vines. 

250.  Measurement   of   Irrigation   Water  on 

the  Farm. 

252.  Supports  for  Vines. 

253.  Vineyard  Plans. 

254.  The  Use  of  Artificial  Light  to  Increase 

Winter   Egg   Production. 

255.  Leguminous   Plants  as  Organic  Fertil- 

izer  in    California   Agriculture. 

256.  The   Control   of  Wild   Morning  Glory. 

257.  The  Small-Seeded  Horse  Bean. 

258.  Thinning  Deciduous  Fruits. 


CIRCULARS 
No. 


259. 
261. 
262. 
263. 
264. 

265. 
266. 

267. 

269. 
270. 
272. 

273. 
276. 
277. 

278. 

279. 

281. 


282. 

283. 
284. 
285. 
286. 
287. 
288. 
289. 
290. 
291. 

292. 
293. 
294. 
295. 

296. 

298. 

300. 
301. 
302. 
303. 

304. 
305. 
306. 

307. 
308. 
309. 


Pear  By-products. 

Sewing  Grain  Sacks. 

Cabbage  Growing  in  California. 

Tomato  Production  in  California. 

Preliminary      Essentials      to      Bovine 

Tuberculosis  Control. 
Plant   Disease  and  Pest  Control. 
Analyzing     the     Citrus     Orchard     by 

Means  of   Simple  Tree   Records. 
The  Tendency  of  Tractors  to  Rise  in 

Front:    Causes  and  Remedies. 
An  Orchard  Brush  Burner. 
A  Farm  Septic  Tank. 
California  Farm  Tenancy  and  Methods 

of  Leasing. 
Saving  the  Gophered  Citrus  Tree. 
Home  Canning. 
Head,   Cane,   and  Cordon  Pruning  of 

Vines. 
Olive  Pickling  in  Mediterranean  Coun- 
tries. 
The  Preparation  and  Refining  of  Olive 

Oil   in    Southern    Europe. 
The  Results  of  a  Survey  to  Determine 

the  Cost  of  Producing  Beef  in  Cali- 
fornia. 
Prevention  of  Insect  Attack  on  Stored 

Grain. 
Fertilizing  Citrus  Trees  in  California. 
The  Almond  in   California. 
Sweet  Potato  Production  in  California. 
Milk  Houses  for  California  Dairies. 
Potato   Production   in   California. 
Phylloxera   Resistant  Vineyards. 
Oak  Fungus  in  Orchard  Trees. 
The  Tangier  Pea. 
Blackhead  and   Other  Causes  of  Loss 

of  Turkeys  in  California. 
Alkali  Soils. 

The    Basis   of   Grape    Standardization. 
Propagation    of   Deciduous   Fruits. 
The   Growing  and    Handling  of  Head 

Lettuce  in   California. 
Control     of     the     California     Ground 

Squirrel. 
The    Possibilities    and    Limitations    of 

Cooperative   Marketing. 
Coccidiosis  of  Chickens. 
Buckeye  Poisoning  of  the  Honey  Bee. 
The   Sugar   Beet   in   California. 
A  Promising  Remedy  for  Black  Measles 

of  the  Vine. 
Drainage  on  the  Farm. 
Liming  the  Soil. 
A  General  Purpose  Soil  Auger  and  its 

Use  on  the  Farm. 
American   Foulbrood  and  its  Control. 
Cantaloupe  Production  in  California. 
Fruit  Tree  and  Orchard  Judging. 


The  publications  listed  above  may  be  had  by  addressing 

College  of  Agriculture, 

University  of  California, 

Berkeley,  California. 

14m-12,'27 


